Defamation drama: Doctor defeats US$100k judgment in High Court battle

Harare lawyer Dr Walter Mangezi has successfully challenged a US$100 000 defamation judgment awarded against him in favour of fellow medical practitioner Dr Tonderai Irvine Tipere Kasu.

High Court judge Justice Esther Muremba ruled that Mangezi had presented a reasonable explanation for his default and that his defence against Kasu’s defamation claim had a good prospect of success.

Kasu had sued Mangezi for defamation of character after accusing him of failing to disclose a conflict of interest while serving on a medical disciplinary committee that was looking into his case.

Mangezi, through his lawyer Tendai Zhuwarara, successfully argued that the default judgment should be rescinded.

“We argued that the respondent (Kasu) should have first approached the court to uplift the bar on the applicant (Mangezi) from filing his plea before he could proceed to obtain a default judgment,” Zhuwarara said.

Justice Muremba agreed with Zhuwarara’s submissions.

“It is trite that an application stands or falls on its founding affidavit,” Justice Muremba said.

“In casu if the respondent had utilised rule 43(1), he would have notified the applicant of his irregular plea and the need to remove it in terms of rule 43(2)(b) which provides that the applicant should by written notice afford the other party the opportunity of removing the cause of complaint within ten days,” the judge said.

Justice Muremba also ruled that Mangezi’s defence against Kasu’s defamation claim had a reasonable prospect of success.

“The applicant’s counsel submitted that assuming that there was indeed defamation of the respondent, this happened during the discharge of the applicant’s functions in terms of the Health Professions Act [Chapter 27:19] and as such the applicant is protected by the said Act,” the judge said.

Kasu’s lawyer, Mboko had argued that Mangezi’s defence was weak.

“The applicant is clearly on a fishing expedition and this is evidenced by the second application for rescission of default judgment that he filed on the 5th of January 2024 under Case No. 59/24,” Mboko said.

However, Justice Muremba said he could not comment on the second application for rescission of judgment as the details surrounding the application were not presented before the court.

“I do agree with the respondent’s counsel that the applicant was sluggard in the way he handled the main matter after he entered appearance to defend,” the judge said.

“A sluggard litigant refers to a party who displays laziness, negligence, or a lack of diligence in pursuing legal matters. This is a party who fails to comply with court rules, deadlines, or procedures and such behaviour can negatively impact on their case,” Justice Muremba said.

Despite this criticism, Justice Muremba ruled that Mangezi’s overall application to rescind the judgment was successful.

“In view of the foregoing, the applicant managed to establish good and sufficient cause for the application for rescission to be granted,” Justice Muremba said.

“In the result, it is ordered that: The default judgment granted in HC 1120/22 on the 15th of November 2023, be and is hereby set aside. The plea filed by the applicant on the 9th of September 2022, is deemed to have been properly filed. Costs shall be in the cause,” the judge ruled.