Mahere sued
over a story published by online platform Kukurigo, reportedly run by Kudzayi,
which alleged she had an affair with businessman Tinashe Murapata, leading to
the collapse of his marriage.
The lawsuit,
filed in July 2022, went undefended after Kudzayi failed to appear in court.
Justice Joel Mambara granted a default judgment in Mahere’s favour.
“Whereupon,
after reading documents filed of record and hearing counsel, the plaintiff’s
claim be and is hereby granted. The defendant (Edmund Kudzayi) shall pay the
plaintiff the sum of US$100,000.00 (One hundred thousand United States
dollars), or the equivalent thereof in local currency at the rate of exchange
prevailing at the time of payment. The defendant shall pay interest on the
above amount at the prescribed rate namely 5% per annum from the date of
service of summons to the date of payment,” ruled Justice Mambara.
Kudzayi was
also ordered to pay the costs of the suit. At law, a default judgment cannot be
directly appealed but can be challenged through an application for rescission,
which must demonstrate valid reasons for failing to respond to the lawsuit.
Failure to
secure rescission leaves the option to appeal that decision to a higher court.
The story at
the centre of the defamation case included pictures of Mahere and Murapata at
public events, including a funeral and alleged that the former’s WhatsApp
messages seeking money exposed the alleged affair.
Mahere denied
the claims and argued in court papers that the story was defamatory, untrue and
not in the public interest.
“It is
therefore clear that the various publications are neither true nor in the
public interest,” her court submission stated.
She argued that
the statements were “wrongful and defamatory” and intended to portray her as
unethical and unprofessional.
She further
denied any impropriety and challenged the notion that her public role justified
intrusions into her private life, emphasising her right to privacy and
reputation.
Court papers
detailed that Kukurigo, with a claimed readership of 370,000 and significant
social media reach, amplified the allegations, which were subsequently
republished by other outlets. Mahere stated that the extensive dissemination
had damaged her reputation as a legal professional, public figure, and
international speaker.
In his spirited
defence submitted to the High Court, Kudzayi stood firm, asserting that the
article published about Mahere was a faithful execution of his duties as a
journalist and Editor of Kukurigo Network News Service.
He painted the
piece not as mere speculation but as a carefully crafted narrative grounded in
truth and professional integrity.
Kudzayi
challenged Mahere’s claim that the article was filled with “insinuations,”
countering that these were, in fact, verifiable truths about her conduct,
supported by solid evidence he was ready to unveil in court.
“The defendant
holds steadfast to the position that the article is truthful and anchored in
concrete proof,” he declared.
He vehemently
rejected the suggestion that he had ever admitted the allegations were false,
demanding that Mahere meet the “strictest proof” burden to support such a
claim. It was also Kudzayi’s argument that his motivation was pure and
public-spirited, driven solely by the public interest rather than any personal
vendetta.
The accusations
that the publication was fueled by spite or ill will, he insisted, were
baseless and unfounded. Moreover, Kudzayi emphasised that Mahere was not left
in the dark—she was invited to respond to the allegations and had ample
opportunity to engage in dialogue, thanks to an open channel of communication.
This, he said, decisively quashed any notion of malice on his part. Herald
0 comments:
Post a Comment