Defamation and the law in Zimbabwe

In the past two weeks the word defamation has been making the rounds on social media (deformation as novice individuals would call it which is obviously wrong). The reason for this traction is simple, that is if you follow Zimbabwean pop news of course. It all comes from the popular DJ Olla podcast, specifically his damming interview with the musician Holy Ten. The musician made a lot of claims against the other who-is-who of celebrities and socialites in Zimbabwe including Mudiwa, Mhamha Vee, Volts JT, Prophet Eubert Angles etc. The claims are out of the scope of this article obviously, in this article I just want to discuss what the law says about defamation and perhaps help someone out there.

I am not a lawyer and I have no legal background at all hence do not take this article as legal advice. I used our platform, Case Rover, to do the legal research for this topic. Case Rover is an AI-powered platform that helps lawyers to do tasks such as legal research and this article is a highlighter of how powerful the platform is. Reach out to us from our contact us page for more here (Contact Us).

Definition of Defamation

First, we have to define what defamation is and for that we use Case Rover to look for any statutory or case law definition. Using the prompt “What is the legal definition of defamation” on Case Rover we got the definition as:

Defamation in Zimbabwe is legally defined as a statement that injures the reputation of the person to whom it refers, causing them to be viewed with feelings of hatred, contempt, ridicule, fear, dislike, or disesteem by right-thinking members of society.

A person can not just wake up and claim defamation if there was no statement made against them and if there was a statement against them then that statement must have injured the reputation of that person. If there is no injury to a person’s reputation then there is no defamation (the extent of the injury is then subjected to a court to decide). For a person to be able to win a defamation lawsuit there are elements that should be met for the court to be satisfied. Using the prompt “Elements for defamation” on Case Rover got us:

Key Elements of Defamation

Publication: The defamatory statement must be published to at least one person other than the plaintiff. In Muhlwa v Alpha Media Holdings & Ors, the statement was published in a widely circulated newspaper, meeting this requirement (p. 1).

Falsity: The statement must be false. In the case of Muhlwa, the plaintiff testified that the allegations of embezzlement were untrue, thus establishing falsity (p. 4).

Defamatory Meaning: The statement must be likely to lower the plaintiff in the estimation of right-thinking members of society. In Muhlwa, the court found the words defamatory in their ordinary meaning (p. 7). Similarly, in Mnangagwa v Alpha Media Holdings & Anor, the court assessed whether the words could convey a defamatory meaning to an ordinary reader, using an objective test (citing Burchell’s “The Law of Defamation in South Africa”).

Reference to the Plaintiff: The statement must refer to the plaintiff. In Muhlwa, the article explicitly mentioned the plaintiff (p. 5).

Fault: The defendants must have been at fault in making the statement. The court in Muhlwa noted that the journalist’s failure to verify facts indicated negligence (p. 7).

Legal Personality: The entity claiming defamation must have a legal personality capable of being injured. In Gold Mining and Minerals Development Trust v Zimbabwe Miners Federation, the court found that a trust, not being a juristic person, cannot be defamed, although trustees may pursue claims in their capacity (HH 24-2006, pp. 4-5).

The key elements from Case Rover make it clear for anyone to understand the things that should be available for something to be considered to be defamation

Defense for defamation

In defamation cases, defendants can raise several defenses to counter the claims made against them. These defenses are crucial in determining the outcome of the case and protecting freedom of speech while balancing it against the right to reputation.

Truth: If the defendant can prove that the defamatory statement is true, it serves as a complete defense against defamation claims.
Fair Comment: This defense applies when the statement is an opinion based on true factual allegations and is made without malice. It protects comments on matters of public interest.
Privilege: Certain statements are protected under absolute or qualified privilege. Absolute privilege applies to statements made in specific contexts, such as parliamentary proceedings or judicial settings. Qualified privilege applies to statements made in good faith on matters where the communicator has a duty or interest to make the statement to a person with a corresponding interest or duty.
Consent: If the plaintiff consented to the publication of the statement, it cannot be considered defamatory.
Innocent Dissemination: This defense is available to parties who unknowingly distributed defamatory material, such as booksellers or libraries, without any knowledge of the defamatory content.
Lack of Defamatory Meaning: The defendant can argue that the statement does not carry a defamatory meaning or that it would not harm the plaintiff’s reputation in the eyes of a reasonable person.

These defenses are reflected in various cases within Zimbabwean jurisdiction, as seen in the cases such as Chidzambga v Zimbabwe Newspapers 1980 Ltd & Ors and Zvobgo v Kingstons Ltd, which discuss the requirements for the defense of fair comment and the interpretation of defamatory content.

Remedies for Defamation

Defamation remedies are designed to address the harm caused by defamatory statements and to restore the reputation of the affected party. These remedies can be categorized into several types, including damages, injunctions, and retractions.

Damages: Monetary compensation awarded to the plaintiff for the harm suffered due to defamation. The amount can vary based on factors such as the severity of the defamation, the extent of publication, and the impact on the plaintiff’s reputation. For example, in the case of Sibanda v Zimbabwe Newspapers & Ors HH 699/18, the court awarded $30,000 in damages.
Injunctions: Court orders that prevent further publication or dissemination of the defamatory material. Injunctions can be temporary or permanent, depending on the circumstances. In the case of Schweppes (Central Africa) Ltd v Zimbabwe Newspapers (1980) Ltd HC 114/87, the court refused a perpetual interdict as the letter had not been published.
Retractions and Apologies: Defendants may be required to publish retractions or apologies to mitigate the harm caused by the defamatory statements. This is often part of a settlement or court order to restore the plaintiff’s reputation.
Declaratory Relief: A court declaration that the statements were defamatory, which can help in restoring the plaintiff’s reputation even if no monetary damages are awarded.
Punitive Damages: In some cases, courts may award punitive damages to punish the defendant for egregious conduct and to deter future defamation. However, this is less common and depends on the jurisdiction and specific case circumstances.

These remedies are reflected in various cases within Zimbabwean jurisdiction, as seen in the cases such as Tekere v Zimbabwe Newspapers (1980) Ltd & Munyuki HC 275/86, where the court awarded damages for defamation, and Sibanda v Zimbabwe Newspapers & Ors HH 699/18, where both damages and the rejection of the defense of qualified privilege were significant.

Conclusion

This article, prompted by recent social media discussions surrounding Zimbabwean celebrities, aimed to clarify the legal concept of defamation within the country’s context. Using the AI-powered legal research tool Case Rover, we explored the definition of defamation as an injury to reputation, detailed the essential elements required to establish a claim (including publication, falsity, and fault), outlined potential defenses such as truth and fair comment, and described the remedies available, like damages and injunctions. While not offering legal advice, this overview highlights that defamation involves specific legal requirements and considerations, demonstrating the complexity beyond casual accusations and the utility of tools like Case Rover in navigating legal information.