Judgement To Lawsuit With John Nkomo Reserved

The High Court judge presiding in the $200 billion defamation case, Justice Francis Bere, was expected to pass judgment in the case last week on Wednesday but deferred the verdict to early January next year.

Job Sibanda of Job Sibanda and Associates who is representing Moyo in the case said Justice Bere notified them early last week of the delay in the passing of judgment after citing late submission of documents by the lawyers.

“The case outcome will be known early next year as his Honour Judge Justice Francis Bere told us that he was still looking at papers we handed over to him and he indicated that we sent them to him late and he still needed time to go over them,” Sibanda said.

Moyo, a fierce defender of President Mugabe during his tenure as the government’s top spin doctor, dragged Nkomo together with another Zanu PF politburo member Dumiso Dabengwa to court to answer defamation charges over libelous statements the two allegedly made against him at a rally in Tsholotsho.

Moyo however dropped charges against Dabengwa in unexplained circumstances and is now only suing Nkomo. Moyo alleges Nkomo uttered statements insinuating that he was plotting a coup against President Mugabe when he called a meeting in Dinyane in Tsholotsho in 2004.

Moyo dragged Nkomo to court last year seeking to prove that he had defamed him by telling Zanu PF supporters in Tsholotsho district that he (Moyo) was the mastermind of an alleged “smart coup” plot to topple President Robert Mugabe and his deputies.

Nkomo told the meeting, Moyo said, that he (Moyo) had also received funding from donors hostile to President Mugabe’s government.

Sibanda, in his 50 page written submissions, described Nkomo as an unreliable witness and urged the court to set “high and exemplary damages” because of Moyo’s “elevated public standing”.

Sibanda also argued that the pleas filed by Nkomo, the 1st defendant in the $100 billion lawsuit, and Dumiso Dabengwa, who was the 2nd defendant, were improper.

"It is trite law that in pleading, defendant against whom a claim has been filed may deny the allegation, admit the allegations against him and avoid the consequences thereof by offering justification for same or admit and offer to settle," said Sibanda.

He argued that a party may not deny and avoid, as to do so, which Nkomo and Dabengwa did, would be improper.

In their defenses’, Nkomo and Dabengwa denied having said the words complained of, thus putting Prof Moyo to the proof of his allegations.

They further averred that if the court held that they had uttered the defamatory words, which they quickly pointed out they denied, then the words complained of were true and for public benefit.

Sibanda noted that faced with the confusing and confused plea, Moyo was entitled to pursue his claim against both Nkomo and Dabengwa, although the claim against Dabengwa has been dropped.

To avoid footing Dabengwa’s costs, Moyo submitted that his claim against the former Home Affairs Minister and liberation war hero was not frivolous.

Moyo’s lawyer said: “Midway through the trial, after Moyo had closed his case and after Nkomo had testified and had been cross-examined, during the testimony of Dabengwa, Moyo withdrew his claims against Dabengwa who was then absolved of any liability in the case by the court.

"The question for determination now is whether Dabengwa should be allowed to recover his costs incurred up to the day Moyo withdrew claims against him, or whether he should bear his own costs.”

He submitted that in order to answer the question of costs against Dabengwa, the "court must have regard to the evidence led by Moyo against Dabengwa prior to the withdrawal, and also Dabengwa’s own defence and the strength of such defence.”

He noted that Dabengwa’s defence was improper, meaning it was ambivalent, and that Moyo was entitled to demand an amplification of such a plea during the trial.

Sibanda further argued that when the claim against Dabengwa was withdrawn, sufficient evidence to establish his liability had been led by Prof Moyo. He noted that at the end of Moyo’s case, Dabengwa did not apply for absolution from the instance.

On the question of the quantum of damages, Sibanda urged the court to take note of the fact that his client was an accomplished scholar, writer, academic and public figure and is a professor of political science.

There was a legal dispute on the validity of minutes of a meeting of the Tsholotsho District Coordinating Committee held on January 12, 2005, at which Nkomo and Dabengwa were said to have made defamatory remarks about Moyo. Sibanda said a glaring fact about the minutes was that they were not confirmed and they were not verbatim minutes.

While the minutes are deficient in certain respects, he said, they accurately summarise other aspects and urged the court to regard the minutes with some qualification.

On the analysis of evidence, Sibanda noted that Nkomo’s main defence to the claim was a "bare denial” of the allegations made against him and to deny that the meeting of January 12, 2005, was a public meeting.

---

Share This Story On:

Average user rating