The plaintiff and first defendant had a landlord-tenant relationship that ended acrimoniously after the first defendant breached the lease agreement and operated without a liquor license. After the relationship ended, both parties operated businesses in close proximity in Bindura. An online publication, Bulawayo 24 News (fourth defendant), published an article titled "Mysterious juju found in famous club" with pictures of the first defendant's club and alleged juju. The article quoted the first defendant as attributing the juju to the plaintiff, claiming the plaintiff had cast a spell on him as a business rival. The article stated that prophets confirmed the plaintiff was responsible and performed a "back to sender" protection ritual. The plaintiff claimed he received calls from patrons and anonymous persons about these allegations before the article was published. A witness, Susan Dzumbunu, testified that the first defendant approached her showing pictures of the juju on his phone and making similar allegations against the plaintiff and her sister (plaintiff's employee). The second to fourth defendants did not enter appearance to defend.
1. The 1st defendant shall pay to the plaintiff US$4,000.00 together with interest at the prescribed rate from date of judgment to date of payment in full. 2. The 2nd, 3rd and 4th defendants shall each pay to the plaintiff US$1,000.00 together with interest at the prescribed rate from date of judgment to date of payment in full. 3. The 1st, 2nd, 3rd and 4th defendants shall jointly and severally, the one paying the others to be absolved, bear the costs of suit.
In an action for defamation, words imputing witchcraft, use of juju, and black magic to harm business rivals are defamatory as they would be reasonably understood by readers to mean the plaintiff uses unorthodox and evil means, causing ridicule, hatred and contempt in African culture. A defendant can be found liable as the source of a defamatory publication even without direct evidence of providing information to publishers where: (1) the article extensively quotes the defendant in terms consistent with their own evidence; (2) photographs in the article could only have been taken with the defendant's knowledge or consent; (3) the defamed person is someone with whom the defendant had acrimony providing motive; (4) credible witness testimony establishes the defendant spread similar allegations independently; and (5) the defendant shows no contrition and provides no satisfactory explanation for the publication. Online publishers have a duty to verify facts and conduct proper interviews before publishing defamatory material. Assessment of damages must consider the content and nature of publication, probable consequences, extent of publication, plaintiff's standing, defendant's conduct and lack of contrition, recklessness, and the continuing harm from material remaining online.
The court observed that damages in defamation are not meant to be punitive but seek to compensate the plaintiff for loss of good name and contumelia (injury to dignity), though this is not easy to quantify. The court noted that where a wrong has been committed, the moral blameworthiness is drastically reduced when offensive words are retracted and an apology rendered, and conversely, lack of contrition increases the quantum of damages. The court commented on the power of online media: "newspapers and other broadcasting media are extremely powerful agencies which are able to reach enormous numbers of members of the public and that, if they publish defamatory material, the end result can be devastating harm to reputation...harm to reputation is extremely insidious and once reputation has been damaged it is very difficult to repair the damage." The court also observed that while journalists have a duty to inform the public and publish matters of interest, they are equally duty bound to verify facts. The court noted that the internet is widely used in Zimbabwe and online publications have wide readership, and that leaving defamatory material online exacerbates the harm to the plaintiff.
This case demonstrates the Zimbabwean High Court's approach to defamation in the context of online publications and social media. It reinforces the serious view courts take of allegations of witchcraft in African cultural contexts, recognizing such allegations as highly damaging to reputation. The judgment establishes important principles regarding: (1) the evidentiary burden in proving the source of defamatory publications; (2) the duty of online media to verify facts and conduct proper interviews before publication; (3) the aggravating effect of leaving defamatory material online; (4) the assessment of damages in defamation cases considering the plaintiff's standing, the recklessness of publication, and lack of contrition; and (5) differential liability where one defendant instigates defamation versus those who merely publish it. The case also illustrates how circumstantial evidence and credible witness testimony can establish liability despite direct denials.