VELEMPINI v ENGINEERING SERVICES DEPARTMENT WORKERS' COMMITTEE FOR THE ENGINEERING SERVICES OF THE CITY OF BULAWAYO & ORS 1988 (2) ZLR 173 (HC)

Flynote

Delict — defamation — defamatory matter — what constitutes — lowering plaintiff in estimation of right — thinking members of society generally — extent to which a sectional view may be adopted — shunning and avoiding of plaintiff — not conclusive of matter — public issue — latitude must be allowed for debate.

Headnote

The plaintiff was a senior administrative officer in the Engineering Services Department of the City of Bulawayo. The defendant committee was formed to represent workers employed by the City Council in the plaintiff's department. In August 1987 an article appeared in a Bulawayo newspaper, which stated that workers represented by the defendant committee planned to demonstrate against the Council's two trade unions because of their ineffectiveness in protecting the welfare of Council employees. A spokesman for the Committee was quoted as having said that the plaintiff had challenged the Committee to take the matter to any Minister and that he had not been prepared to talk to the Committee any further. The passage concerning the plaintiff consisted of 28 words; the whole article contained 495 words.

The plaintiff alleged that the passage was false and defamatory of him, in that it implied that he had failed to carry out the requirements of his office and that he was not prepared to comply with the legislation under which the Committee was created thereby holding the legislation and the responsible Minister in contempt. He also alleged in his evidence that the article had adversely affected his relationships with his superiors in the City Council; that because of the prevailing political climate in Bulawayo friends and relatives began to refuse to associate with him; that because of the suggestion in the article that he was against the present government his wife had threatened to divorce him; and that he was twice interviewed by members of the Central Intelligence Organization and warned to be careful about what he said and did. No other evidence was called in support of his allegations.

Held, that the words complained of were not defamatory per se, particularly when read in the context of the article as a whole, which an ordinary reader would understand as merely describing a dispute between the workers and their unions. They could not be read as implying that the plaintiff challenged the relevant legislation.

Held, further, that in distilling the meaning of words from the language used, it is proper for the Court to take into account the prevailing state of public opinion and in doing so to take cognisance of its own knowledge and experience of local conditions. In this connection, the animosity and political tension alleged by the plaintiff were not supported by the Court's own experience.

Held, further, that while the lowering of a person in the estimation of a substantial and respectable portion of the community is sufficient to establish defamation, the persons who allegedly took an interest in what was said about the plaintiff could not be classed as ordinary readers of the article, being either over-critical, suspicious or abnormally sensitive. Further, these persons did not constitute a substantial portion of the community.

Held, further, that even if it had been satisfactorily established that the plaintiff had been shunned or avoided because of the article, that was not conclusive. Loss of association is merely a pointer to what might be defamation, but the delict consists of the impairment of reputation, not the deprivation of association.

Held, further, that because the article and the words complained of concerned a public issue, latitude must be given to them. Not to do so would stifle debate. The plaintiff, as part of management, should be aware that misrepresentations occur in debates between workers (and their representatives) and management.