Newer v Zimbabwe Newspapers (198) LTD & ANOR 2001 (2) ZLR 508 (S)

/0 Comments/in /by

Mr LT Biti for the respondent – defamation delict. The second respondent wrote an article which appeared in a newspaper published by the first respondent. The article was critical of a decisions made by the Zimbabwe Broadcasting Corporation It alleged that the decision was talked buy corporations “in house-lawyer”. the article referred to “ the calibre of some of the people who make decision at ZBC” and referred to t”the lawyers stranger and warped thinking”. The declaration was badly drawn. It did not correctly quote the article , and confused factual allegations with innuendo.

the appellant claimed that the article referred to her, as she was the corporation corporate secretary and legal adviser. She stated , though that the decision which was being criticise was made, not by her, but by the corporations board of governors, although she had in her official capacity, signed the press statement in which the decision was announced. the appellants action was dismissed in the High court on appeal:

held, that where an article in a newspaper is said to be defamatory, it is permissible of the court to ignore the words specified in the declaration and look at the whole article.

Held, that further, that to question the calibre of people working for a particular employer necessarily implies that some are of a low calibre. Hone this was followed by reference to the lawyers “strange and warped thinking”, this necessarily implied that this was meant as an example of the work of a low calibre employee. While the word “strange” may not be regarded as defamatory, to refer to the strange and warped thinking of one of those employees is too make a statement calculated to lower that person in the esteem of those who know the remark referee to him or her.

held further that although reference to the appellant was not clearly please it was sufficiently pleaded.

held further that if fair comment is pleaded, the factual allegation on which it is based must be true. The article alleged that appellant made the decision which was being criticised. The evidence establish that the decision was not made by the appellant, even though she had in her official capacity, signed the press statement. Where the allegations are made about the plaintiff, and should have been made about someone else the defence is fair and the comment must fail.

Nyatanga v Editor, The Herald & ANOR 2001 (1) ZLR 63 (H)

/0 Comments/in /by

Mr LT Biti for the defendants — damages for defamation.

The plaintiff was Master of the High Court, he claimed damages from the defendants after an article was published which suggest that he had committed unlawful or criminal acts after initially opposing the claim, the defendants conceded that the article was defamatory the only issue was of quantum.

held that allegations which impugn the integrity of a person holding the post of Master of the High Court and Sheriff of the High Court are defamatory in the highest degree and call for punitive damages. They are more serious than allegations defaming a politician of a businessman. To attack, falsely, the honest and integrity of a person holding high office in the judicial system undermine the confidence that the public should have in the judicial system of the country.

Aitken v Zimbabwe Newspapers (1980) (Pvt) Ltd 1997 (1) ZLR 383 (H)

/in /by

Mr Biti appeared for the respondent whom in the course of reporting the ongoing case of the plaintiff used the words “siphoning off”. The court held that these words to the reader would suggest theft and that accusing a man of theft is a serious defamation further exacerbated by the mans standing as a prominent legal practitioner.

Zimbabwe Newspapers (1980) Ltd and Anor v Bloch 1997 (1) ZLR 473 (S)

/in /by

Supreme court of Harare

Mr Biti was advising advocate De Bourbon for the respondent. In October 1993, the respondent, a well-respected economist, addressed a conference dealing with regional wealth and development. In answer to a question abut the water problems in Bulawayo, he said that nothing would be done “until 3 million Shona’s or, the President, are relocated to Bulawayo”. The reaction of the appellants was to publish, mostly in the Sunday Mail, a series of articles condemning the respondent. The articles published over a 4 week period, accused the respondent among other things of being a “latent racist”, if not worse. of attempting to whip up tribal emotions, of being insane, of playing a dangerous game and of being a hypocrite. The respondent sued the the appellants for defamation in respect of each of the articles. The trial was held on 16 February 1996. The judge found for the respondent and awarded globular damages of $45 000 against he first appellant, the publisher and $40 000 against the second appellant the editor. The appellants appealed on three grounds, the first was that the judge should have found the statements fair comment.The second attacked the quantum of damages; and the third ground was that the judge erred in ordering interest to run from the date of publication. the judge held in favour of the respondent.