defamationcorporationperegrinussecurity for costsmisjoinderexception
Tags
defamationexceptionspecial pleamisjoindersecurity for costs
legislation
Statutes Cited
High Court Rules, 1971
ai analysis
Case Summary
Key Issues
{"issue_text":"Whether special plea based on failure to pay security for costs should succeed","issue_type":"procedural","dispositive":"no","related_facts":"First plaintiff is peregrinus, no prior demand for security"}
{"issue_text":"Whether corporation can sue for defamation under actio injuriarum","issue_type":"law","dispositive":"no","related_facts":"First plaintiff is corporation"}
{"issue_text":"Whether there is misjoinder of defendants","issue_type":"procedural","dispositive":"no","related_facts":"Three defendants joined, different causes of action"}
{"issue_text":"Whether second and third plaintiffs are sufficiently identified in publications","issue_type":"mixed","dispositive":"yes","related_facts":"Publications refer to plaintiffs generally"}
This summary was generated by AI. Use Zalari to read the full judgment.
background
Facts of the Case
Background
Plaintiffs sued defendants for defamation over Twitter posts and newspaper articles alleging corruption in Harare Airport Road project. First defendant raised exception and special plea regarding security for costs and whether corporation can be defamed, and misjoinder of defendants.
Read the full judgment, get AI analysis, and find related cases