ZVOBGO v KINGSTONS LTD 1986 (2) ZLR 310 (H)

Flynote

Delict — defamation — sting of defamatory allegation — manner of proving quasi — innuendo — defamatory nature of allegation — test for — right of D freedom of speech and — fair comment — statement of fact or expression of opinion — based on unrevealed facts animus injuriandi — presumption of — distributor — liability based on negligence.

Damages — defamation — apportionment of — quantum — public figure — costs.

Costs — plus petitio.

Headnote

The plaintiff, then Minister of Justice, brought action on the grounds of the distribution by the defendant of a popular magazine containing an article alleged to be defamatory of him. For the defendant it was denied that the articles were defamatory or bore the sting alleged and the defence of fair comment was raised.

Held, that a plaintiff may call evidence as to the sense in which allegedly defamatory words were understood in order to prove the sting of the defamation provided that he first establishes the existence of particular circumstances which give rise to the distinctive extended meaning of therelevant words.

Held, further, that the plaintiff was defamed.

Held, further, that the defence of fair comment cannot succeed where the defamatory publication would be regarded by the average reasonable reader as founded upon unrevealed information in the possession of the publisher.

Held, further, that no public figure can expect to escape criticism and provided protests are kept within the bounds of moderation and do not impute dishonourable conduct they will not be actionable.

The factors to be considered in assessing damages suffered by a public figure discussed.