Gappah risks civil imprisonment over unpaid damages to Fadzayi Mahere

Author and lawyer Petina Gappah is likely to face civil imprisonment for failing to pay the US$18,000 damages awarded to Fadzayi Mahere, former Mt Pleasant Member of Parliament, for defamatory remarks made on Twitter in 2018.

High Court judge Justice Joseph Mafusire recently ordered Gappah to pay the damages, plus 5% interest per annum and Mahere’s legal costs. But Gappah has failed to pay the damages.

Consequently, Mahere’s legal team has attached Gappah’s properties, including a BMW valued at US$5,000, a Capri Deep Freezer (US$200), Defy Microwave (US$100), and Glass display (US$100), but the total value falls short of the US$18,000 damages.

This development may lead to Mahere seeking Gappah’s civil imprisonment.

The defamation case stems from a Twitter spat in 2018, where Gappah made allegations about Mahere’s university admissions and personal life. Mahere denied the allegations and sued Gappah for US$1 million, citing harm to her career.

Gappah apologised and offered a donation to a charity of Mahere’s choice, but Mahere’s legal team deemed the apology insincere.

Justice Mafusire reduced the damages claim from US$1 million to US$50,000 and subsequently ordered Gappah to pay US$18,000 in damages. The judge stated that the defamatory statements were “vile and persistent,” justifying the substantial damages awarded to Mahere.

“I determine that the plaintiff is entitled to her costs but not on the higher scale. My reason for this is that whilst the defamatory statements by the defendant were vile and persistent, the stiff award of damages above has been in recognition of that factor, among others.

“Furthermore, the defendant lost all the interlocutory applications with costs being awarded against her there and then. None were held over for determination later as is sometimes done,” Justice Mafusire ruled.

“In the recusal application, the costs were awarded on the higher scale. There is no reason to mulct the defendant any further.

“Lastly, the plaintiff’s summons was not issued in October 2020, but in October 2018 when the monetary regime in place was different from the one-to-one ratio referred to by her. So it cannot have been the reason for the initially inflated claim.

“However, whilst the plus petitio principle is relevant, it has had little sway in this matter because I have considered that there are really no special circumstance to warrant a departure from the general rule about costs. In the result, the following order is hereby made,

“The defendant shall pay the plaintiff the sum of US$18000 [eighteen 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 judgment to the date of payment.

“The defendant shall pay the plaintiff’s costs of suit.