PRAKASH V WILSON & ANOR 1992 (2) ZLR 294 (S)

Defamation — pleading defence of fair comment instead of justification — but truth of contents of article proved at trial — incorrect statement in D newspaper article headline — amount of damages to be awarded therefor

Headnote

The respondents had published an article about the appellant. When the appellant sued for defamation, the respondents pleaded the defence of fair comment, without also pleading justification. The trial judge found that the defence of fair comment was not established because the article contained statements of fact and not comment. However, the truth of the allegations made against the plaintiff in the article had been extensively investigated and proved during the trial of the case. On appeal, Held, that, although the defence of justification should have been pleaded as well as fair comment, no objection was taken at any stage to the adduction of evidence tending to show that the statements were true. In the circumstances, the defence of fair comment based on facts shown to be true should have been upheld, except in relation to the headline to the newspaper article, which was not true. Held, further, in relation to the headline to the newspaper, that this was inaccurate because it tended to suggest criminal conduct on the part of the appellant, whereas the contents of the article established only that the appellant had been an unreliable business partner. However, as the appellant had made nothing of this point until the matter actually came for trial and could undoubtedly have had a correction published by the respondents had he asked for it, nothing more than nominal damages was justified.

MCNally

Continue beyond the preview