MAKETO v MEDICAL INVESTMENTS (PVT) LTD & ANOR 1988 (2) ZLR 12 (HC)

Flynote

Delict — defamation — republication by third party of defamatory statement made by the defendant — statement made to newspaper reporter — $\mathbb{D}$ defendant liable for subsequent reports of interview.

Headnote

A person who publishes defamatory matters may be liable not only for the original publication but for any republication of the same matter by others, but only -

• (a) where the defendant authorized or intended the repetition; $\varepsilon$
• (b) where there was a moral duty, to the defendant's knowledge, on the other person or persons to repeat the matter; or
• (c) where the repetition flows in the ordinary and normal course of events from the original publication.

If a person makes a defamatory statement in the course of an interview with a newspaper reporter, all three of these situations would apply, and the person would be fully liable for any subsequent report of the interview. It commonly occurs that a newspaper will repeat a report of a particular event while it remains newsworthy and the substance of the report would probably be repeated if litigation arises, so a repetition of the original report should be expected by the defendant. It is therefore arguable that the "authorized" the report and it is probable that it was a natural consequence of the original publication as well.