Moyo filed a Z$2 billion lawsuit against Nkomo, and former Defence Minister Dumiso Dabengwa, claiming defamation over statements the two politicians made during a Tsholotsho district Zanu PF meeting in February 2005.

Moyo later dropped his action against Dabengwa, and revised the suit against Nkomo to Z$100 billion in view of inflation.

The written submissions address the issue of costs and also seek to dismantle Nkomo’s defence.

Bulawayo lawyer Job Sibanda, of Job Sibanda and Associates, argues in the 50-page document seen by our correspondent that the pleas filed by Nkomo, who is also the Speaker of the House of Assembly, and Dumiso Dabengwa, who was the 2nd defendant, were improper.

"It is trite law that in pleading, defendant against whom a claim has been filed may deny the allegation, admit the allegations against him and avoid the consequences thereof by offering justification for same or admit and offer to settle," Sibanda argues.

In original summons filed at the Bulawayo High Court, Moyo charged that Dabengwa and Nkomo had told Zanu PF supporters that he plotted a coup against President Robert Mugabe. Moyo says that was a lie.

Read a part of the summons: "On the 12th of January 2005, both defendants addressed a public meeting in Tsholotsho where both Nkomo and Dabengwa said of and concerning Prof Moyo words to the following effect:

"That Prof Moyo had instigated, funded and led the hatching of a coup plot against President Robert Mugabe and others in the top leadership of the Zanu PF party, with the view of removing the national leadership of the government.”

Moyo also says that the two officials had alleged the formation of a document now referred to as the Tsholotsho Declaration, and that Moyo had sourced money from unfriendly foreign governments which he was now distributing in Zimbabwe.

"The statements by Nkomo and Dabengwa of and concerning Prof Moyo were false, wrongful, unlawful and highly defamatory of Prof Moyo,” the summons said.

In their defence, Nkomo and Dabengwa denied having said the defamatory words complained of, thus putting Prof Moyo to the proof of his allegations.

In papers filed with the High Court this week, Moyo’s lawyers argued that a party may not deny and avoid as to do so, as did Nkomo and Dabengwa, was “clearly improper”.

Sibanda further averred that if the court held that Nkomo and Dabengwa had uttered the words, which they deny, then the words complained of were true and for public benefit.

Moyo’s lawyer said his client should not be made to bear Dabengwa’s costs. He noted that faced with the confusing and confused plea, Prof Moyo was entitled to pursue his claim against both defendants.

The lawyer submitted: "Midway through the trial, after Prof Moyo had closed his case and after Nkomo had testified and had been cross-examined during the testimony of Dabengwa, Prof Moyo withdrew his claims against Dabengwa, who was then absolved of any liability in the case by the court.

"The question for determination now is whether the Dabengwa should be allowed to recover his costs incurred up to the day Prof Moyo withdrew claims against him, or whether he should bear his own costs.”

He submitted that in order to answer the question of costs against Dabengwa, the "court must have regard to the evidence led by Prof Moyo against Dabengwa prior to the withdrawal, and also Dabengwa’s own defence and the strength of such defence.”

He notes that Dabengwa’s defence was “improper”, meaning it was ambivalent and that Prof Moyo was entitled to demand an amplification of such a plea during the trial.

He adds: "A defendant has a duty to properly plead his true defence… Where he fails to do so, or where he pleads a defence that he fails to prove, it is submitted, in the event of claims against him being withdrawn for whatever reason prior to the conclusion of the case, he should not be awarded his costs. It is submitted that such a defendant should be ordered to pay his own costs as a mark of the court’s displeasure with the manner he framed his plea."

He states that when the claim against Dabengwa was withdrawn, sufficient evidence to establish his liability had been led by Prof Moyo. He noted that at the end of Prof Moyo’s case, Dabengwa did not apply for absolution from the instance.

On the question of the quantum of damages, Sibanda urged the court to take note of the fact that Prof Moyo was an accomplished scholar, writer, academic and public figure and is a Professor of Political Science.

"At the time of the publication of the defamatory material, he was a Cabinet Minister in the Office of the President of the Republic of Zimbabwe, responsible for Information and Publicity and a Non-Constituency Member of Parliament.

Without a doubt, Prof Moyo’s social standing and academic achievements place him in a higher than normal strata. It is indeed difficult to perceive of a plaintiff of higher social and academic standing in our society," argued Sibanda.

The lawyer further noted that because of Prof Moyo, Dabengwa and Nkomo’s "elevated" social and political standing in the country, this case is the first of its kind in the legal history of the country.

He added that the defamation in the case was “one of the most serious ever to come before the courts”.

Sibanda said “high and exemplary damages were called for”.

On the minutes of a meeting of the Tsholotsho District Coordinating Committee held on 12 January 2005, Sibanda submitted that there was a glaring fact about the minutes in that they were not confirmed and that they are not verbatim minutes.

He concludes saying while the minutes are deficient in certain respects, they accurately summarise other aspects and urged the court to regard the minutes with some qualification.

On the analysis of evidence, Sibanda noted that Nkomo’s main defence to the claim was “a bare denial” of the allegations made against him and to deny that the meeting of January 12, 2005, was a public meeting.

"A meeting does not cease to be public merely or only because the attendants belong to the same party. Members of the same party constitute a section of the public. Where they congregate in a hall, such as is the case, to discuss party issues, they are in fact doing a private thing in public," says Sibanda.

He submitted that Nkomo did not impress as a witness adding that in general, he was belligerent and hostile towards Prof Moyo for no apparent reason.

The lawyer argued: "He for example failed to give any reason as to why his subordinates in the party would fabricate a story so serious against him. He belatedly claimed, rather scandalously for a man of his stature, that one of the witnesses was visibly sick, and needed assistance with her medication and Prof Moyo was providing this assistance, hence her lying against him.

"The other witness did not respect him because she called him John during her evidence, and that is taboo. He, however, had no reason to proffer as to why she would fabricate a story against him."

Sibanda said all facts considered, Nkomo had failed to advance a plausible motive for the witnesses testifying against him.

He added: "Nkomo said absolutely nothing about the truthfulness of the allegations."

He urged the court not to rely on the evidence of Dabengwa as he differed with every witness in the trial about anti-Prof Moyo sloganeering during the meeting.

Sibanda said the costs of the action against Nkomo should follow the result.