The appellant and respondent were neighbours living on government premises who were in dispute over the rightful ownership and use of a garden forming part of the property. The respondent sued the appellant for $6,000 for defamation, alleging that the appellant had called him a homosexual in the presence of the respondent's wife, stating that he had a habit of having sexual intercourse with other men. Both parties gave evidence and called witnesses at trial. The trial magistrate found for the respondent and awarded him $700 in damages. The appellant appealed this decision.
The appeal was dismissed. No order as to costs was made as both parties appeared in person.
Words accusing someone of being a homosexual (specifically stating that they have a habit of having sexual intercourse with other men) are defamatory as they lower the standing of the person in society to a great extent. In assessing credibility in defamation cases, courts must evaluate the probabilities and consistency of each party's version of events, and inconsistencies in a defendant's evidence (such as denying obvious facts) weaken their credibility and strengthen the plaintiff's case.
The court made observations about the cultural context of the defamation, noting that homosexuality is "almost taboo in the African culture," which made it improbable that the respondent would falsely label himself as homosexual if the words were not actually spoken. The court also observed on witness credibility that a witness who is "not protective" and reveals information that may not be entirely favorable to their side is more credible than one who is "too protective" and carefully omits damaging information in their evidence-in-chief.
This case is significant in Zimbabwean defamation law as it confirms that calling someone a homosexual, particularly in the context of African culture where homosexuality is taboo, constitutes defamation as such words lower the standing of the plaintiff in society to a great extent. The case also provides guidance on the assessment of credibility of witnesses and the evaluation of evidence in defamation cases, particularly where there are inconsistencies in a defendant's version of events.