Johannesburg - The long-delayed racism case brought by reporters against their then boss Ferial Haffajee is due in court next week.
The four former City Press reporters - Mawande Mvumvu, Khanyiso Tshwaku, Muntu Vilakazi and Denvor de Wee - brought the case against then editor Haffajee in January 2014, accusing her of defaming them by calling them racists.
They were all working at the newspaper at the time, but have all since left.
The four claimed R3 million each from Haffajee and Media24, which owns City Press.
Although Haffajee left City Press recently, she is still a defendant in the case.
The matter is now set down for a hearing in the Johannesburg High Court on August 18.
"At this stage, it looks like it is going ahead," said Etienne van der Merwe, the plaintiffs' lawyer.
Attempts at a settlement were made but nothing had came of these. It's understood that the plaintiffs objected to the possibility of a confidentiality clause in a settlement. "They felt they wanted their day in court," said Van der Merwe.
Lawyer Andrew Boerner, acting for Haffajee and Media24, said the matter was being defended by both.
"It has been defended from the beginning," he said.
Boerner said no settlement had been reached. "At this stage, we are proceeding."
He said the four plaintiffs had not been fired. They had still been employed at City Press at the time they filed the case, and had left later "of their own accord".
The dispute goes back to October 2013. The four claim in court papers that, at a City Press meeting, Haffajee called them racists and "culturally superior", and accused them of "causing divisiveness".
They accused her of intentionally defaming them. They say Haffajee subsequently put up a notice saying, "No racists allowed", which was apparently aimed at them.
They accuse her of sending an email to staff which referred to racists, which they believe was aimed at them, and of filing an internal grievance against them.
Haffajee denied defamation. In court papers she says that she had apologised to them on three occasions for "having individualised her criticism" of them.
She also repeated her apology, and said any impairment to their dignity had been restored by the apologies.
The Star