Vice President Phelekezela Mphoko has approached the
Supreme Court challenging the High Court ruling dismissing his bid for
rescission of judgment in the $50 million defamation suit against the Daily
News and the Daily News on Sunday.
The Vice President twice lost the suit at the High Court.He
is now appealing the decision upholding ANZ contention that he used the wrong
practice in seeking to retract a previous ruling, which had also gone against
him.
The suit stems from the June 2015 article the Daily News
published, alleging that VP Mphoko had during the liberation struggle deserted
his colours in exchange for personal gain and aggrandisement.
Through his lawyer, Advocate Thabani Mpofu, the Vice
President argues that the allegations touching on the vending of the national
cause to the prejudice of the blood of the many gallant fighters of the land
were of concern and particularly serious.
The alleged defamatory article was founded on the Daily
News interview with ex-war veterans leader Jabulani Sibanda. In the article,
Sibanda claimed that VP Mphoko had sold out during the liberation struggle,
when he allegedly diverted weapons meant for the late Joshua Nkomo’s Zapu to
Zanu-PF.
This, Sibanda further claimed, could have led to the
needless deaths of thousands of people. In the heads of argument filed last
week, Adv Mpofu said no cause ever existed for the denial of the application
for rescission, which had been brought as a matter of right.
He wants the appeal be allowed, saying the parties ought to
have their differences resolved in fully contested adversarial proceedings.
“Justice demands no less,” said Adv Mpofu.
According to the amended grounds of appeal, it is being
argued that after the High Court improperly found that there was no proper
application before it, it erred in proceeding to consider an application which
it had found to be non-existent.
“The court aquo (lower court) erred in failing to find that
having been represented by a representative who had full instructions to relate
to the matter together with a similarly circumstanced legal practitioner, no
legal basis existed upon which appellant could be deemed to have been in breach
of rule 182(11) of the High Court Rules,” said Adv Mpofu.
“The court aquo erred in failing to determine the point
taken before it to wit, first respondent’s (Daily News reporter Fungai
Kwaramba) absence at the pre-trial conference militated against the dismissal
of appellant’s claim to first respondent’s benefit.”
Further, it is being argued that the lower court
misdirected itself in not finding that the parties having agreed to the
referral of the matter to trial, the dismissal of the claim on the basis that
appellant was not in personal attendance was an error cognizable under rule
449(1)(a) of the High Court Rules.
The lower court, argues Adv Mpofu, erred in concluding
without a basis, that the Practice Directive governing the holding of pre-trial
conferences is in conflict with provisions of rule 182 (11) of the High Court
Rules.
“The court aquo erred in all circumstances in giving effect
to respondent’s ambush tactics under circumstances where they were not
prejudiced by appellant’s absence and also given that they had been content at
all times to deal with only his representatives,” he said.
Adv Mpofu said it was fundamental to court procedures in
this country and in all civilised countries that standards of truthfulness and
honesty be observed by parties who seek relief.
In the premises, the lawyer argues that the appeal is
merited and should to be allowed with costs.
Vice President Mphoko lost the suit after he failed to
attend a pre-trial conference, arguing that he was attending to national duty.
Herald
0 comments:
Post a Comment