Moyo’s lawyer, Job Sibanda, of Job Sibanda and Company Legal Practitioners said he could not meet the deadline because the trial was “too long” and there were a number of legal issues to be covered, making it impossible to meet the September 30 deadline.

Sibanda said he was hoping to submit his written submissions by Monday next week and had already written a letter to the High Court advising them of this development.

When the defence counsel for Nkomo, Francis Chirimuuta, of Chirimuuta and Associates closed his case on September 11, it was agreed that Sibanda should submit his written submissions by the end of last month.

Chirimuuta is expected to submit his by the end of October after he indicated that he would not be available for sometime.

Prof Moyo made an application to amend the quantum of damages he wants from Nkomo to $100 billion, citing the hyper-inflationary economic climate prevailing in the country.

His lawyer Sibanda noted that initially Prof Moyo had demanded $2 billion and that when the Zimbabwean currency was revalued, the amount shrunk to $2 million, which was substituted with yet another amendment for $200 million.

"The hyper-inflationary economic climate has forced my client to make yet another final amendment and is now requesting $100 billion for damages in defamation," said Sibanda during the application.

Nkomo’s defence counsel, Chirimuuta, did not oppose the application adding that issues relating to damages were issues that Prof Moyo would have to prove before the court.

The two counsels agreed at the close of the defence case that they would make written submission with Justice Francis Bere, and setting the first week of December as the date of the judgement.

Addressing the two counsels, Justice Bere told them to address the issue of costs especially in view of the fact that Prof Moyo at some stage dropped the lawsuit against Zanu PF politburo member, Dumiso Dabengwa.

He also asked them to address the court on the issue of the quantum and that on the assessment of evidence, they should address the issue of the minutes of a meeting held on January 12, 2005, where Nkomo allegedly uttered the defaming words.

The judge wants to know if the minutes should be accepted as a true reflection of what transpired at the meeting given that both counsels centred their cross-examination on the minutes.

The taker of the minutes, Kembo Tshuma, who gave contradictory evidence, maintained that the minutes were a true reflection of what happened on the day of the meeting.

He also admitted under cross-examination that they were a summary of what transpired adding that he could have missed some of the issues that were raised in the long trial.

The defamation case is centred on a meeting Nkomo and Dabengwa are alleged to have addressed in Tsholotsho.

"On the 12th of January 2005 both defendants addressed a public meeting in Tsholotsho where both defendants said of, and concerning the plaintiff (Jonathan Nathaniel Moyo) words to the following effect:

"That the plaintiff had instigated, funded and led the hatching of a coup plot against President Robert Mugabe and others in the top leadership of Zanu PF with the view of removing the national leadership of the government. That the coup plot by the plaintiff crafted a 'Tsholotsho Declaration' that detailed the coup plot.

"That the plaintiff had paid unspecified sums of money sourced from foreign persons or countries hostile to Zimbabwe to unnamed people including some members of Zanu PF's Tsholotsho District Co-ordinating committee. That plaintiff was to be barred from contesting in the Zanu PF primary elections because of his role in the coup plot," Moyo said in his claim.

"The statements by the defendants of and concerning the plaintiff were false, wrongful and highly defamatory of plaintiff.”