Kerzner biographer withdraws appeal

Cape Town - Allan Greenblo, the author of Kerzner Unauthorised, and Jonathan Ball, the publisher, had withdrawn their appeal against a high court ban on the book, Claire Wright, the attorney for both parties, said yesterday.

Wright said the appeal in the Supreme Court of Appeal in Bloemfontein had been withdrawn and her clients were ``considering their options``.

On Decem ber 10 1997 Judge Flemming in the Witwatersrand Local Division of the High Court granted Sol Kerzner, the casino magnate, his former wife Anneline Kriel-Bacon and Sun International a final interdict.

The order prohibited Greenblo and Jonathan Ball from distributing, selling, marketing or making available to any person the book Kerzner Unauthorised, a biography of Kerzner.

Kerzner enjoys global prominence in the hotel and gambling industries. Kriel-Bacon, a former Miss World, was married to Kerzner and is now married to Peter Bacon, the chief executive of Sun International.

Kerzner, Kriel-Bacon and Sun International contended the book contained defamatory and insulting matter. It was also an invasion of privacy and a contravention of section 12 of the Divorce Act.

They said the infringement of dignity would have been exacerbated with distribution of every copy of the book.

They maintained persons with high media profiles were entitled to privacy in respect of their private sphere. The evidence had shown they had not forfeited that privacy.

Legal observers said the appeal would have raised important issues for the appeal court.

The court would have been called on to rule on the constitutional protection of rights enshrined in the Bill of Rights.

In this appeal, these rights included to what extent Greenblo and Jonathan Ball were able to rely on their constitutional right to freedom of expression.

Issues concerning the extent to which the offending passages would have been seen to constitute fair comment; and to what extent Kerzner, Kriel-Bacon and Sun International`s constitutional right to privacy had been violated would also have been ruled on.

The court would also for the first time have been asked to rule on the constitutionality of section 12 of the Divorce Act, which makes it a criminal offence to publish ``any particulars of a divorce action or any information which comes to light in the course of such an action``.