Victor Matemadanda v Amos Sigauke and War Veterans Pressure Group

The first and second respondents (plaintiffs in the main action HC 9608/19) sued the applicant (defendant) for $400,000 in defamation damages arising from a publication in the Daily News on 1 July 2019. The article alleged that the first respondent (Amos Sigauke) and his group (the War Veterans Pressure Group) were being sponsored to destabilize the government and were financed by a "rapist" war veteran. The applicant filed a plea on 17 January 2020 in which he admitted making the statements but pleaded that they constituted "fair comment and were justified". The applicant later sought to amend his plea by: (1) raising a special plea that the second respondent lacked locus standi in judicio as it was merely an informal grouping without legal personality; and (2) withdrawing his admissions and denying that he gave a press conference, interacted with the journalist, or made the statements attributed to him. The respondents opposed the application for amendment.

• Whether an amendment to a plea should be granted where the applicant seeks to withdraw admissions previously made
• What constitutes a reasonable explanation for seeking to resile from admissions in a plea
• Whether locus standi in judicio can be raised at a later stage through an amendment to pleadings
• What factors must be considered when exercising discretion to grant or refuse an application for amendment of pleadings
• Whether prejudice is the paramount or singular consideration in determining applications for amendment

1. The application succeeded in part. 2. The applicant was given leave to amend his plea by pleading the issue of locus standi in judicio, to be filed within 10 days. 3. The respondents were given leave to file their replication if advised within 10 days of service of the amended plea. 4. Thereafter the matter would be subject to the rules for advancing its progress. 5. The application was dismissed in respect of the rest of the amendments sought (withdrawal of admissions). 6. Costs of the application were ordered to be costs in the cause in case HC 9608/19.

An application to amend a plea by withdrawing admissions will not be granted in the absence of a reasonable explanation of both the circumstances under which the admission was made and the reasons why it is sought to be resiled from. The court must consider all relevant factors cumulatively when exercising its discretion on amendment applications, including: whether a reasonable explanation has been provided; whether the amendment discloses a triable issue; whether it facilitates proper ventilation of the dispute; absence of mala fides; prejudice to the other party; timeliness; and overall interests of justice. Prejudice is not the singular or paramount consideration. Points of law, including locus standi in judicio, may be raised at any stage of proceedings if done through proper formal procedure such as amendment of pleadings.

The court made several obiter observations: (1) The court expressed concern about poor drafting standards, noting spelling and grammatical errors in the plaintiffs' declaration, including the "hilarious" phrase "jointly and severally the one injured the other one to suffer" and the inappropriate prayer for collection commission. (2) The court disagreed with the dicta in UDC Ltd v Shamva Flora (Pvt) Ltd that prejudice is the "paramount consideration" or "singularly important" factor in amendment applications, stating this would set a dangerous precedent and undermine other important considerations. (3) The court emphasized that a liberal approach to amendments threatens the quality of pleadings by encouraging a casual attitude that pleadings can always be amended, thereby undermining the specialized art of pleading and the principle that amendments are not granted merely for the asking. (4) The court warned that pleading is a specialized art in litigation that legal practitioners must take seriously.

This case is significant for clarifying the principles governing amendments to pleadings in Zimbabwean civil procedure, particularly where a party seeks to withdraw admissions. The judgment emphasizes that: (1) amendments involving withdrawal of admissions require proper explanation and are not granted merely for the asking; (2) all relevant factors must be considered cumulatively, and prejudice is not the sole or paramount consideration; (3) the absence of prejudice compensable by costs does not alone justify granting an amendment; (4) pleadings are serious formal documents that define issues and should not be treated casually with the attitude that they can always be amended later; (5) points of law such as locus standi can be raised at any stage through proper formal procedure. The judgment serves as an important reminder to legal practitioners of the importance of careful, focused pleading and the serious approach required in drafting pleadings.