Tasila, 2 others defamation case goes back to High Court
By GRACE CHAILE LESOETSA
THE Court of Appeal has sent back to the High Court for continued hearing the matter where former Justice Minister Given Lubinda, Jean Kapata and Tasila Lungu sued Environmental Investigation Agency (EIA) and another two for libel for alleging that they were engaged in illegal Mukula trade.
This follows an appeal by EIA, News Diggers Media Limited and editor MukoshaFunga against the High Court decision to dismiss its application to raise two preliminary issues on points of law.
The three in their application to raise preliminary issues contended that the matter ought to have been struck out, on account of the failure by the respondents to plead the case as prescribed in that case.
In this matter, Lubinda, his then Lands counterpart Kapata and Chawama member of Parliament Tasila Lungu, sued News Diggers Media Limited, its editor Fungaand the EIA in the Lusaka High Court, demanding damages for libel. The three sued Funga, News Diggers Media Limited and EIA as first, second and third respondents respectively, in connection with a story on illegal Mukula trade which was published in the News Diggers and derived from an EIA report.
They are seeking among other claims, an order of interim and permanent injunction, restraining Funga, News Diggers and EIA from publishing similar articles and opinions relating to them.
But the High Court in its ruling of the application held that the respondents’ pleadings disclosed a cause of action and dismissed the preliminary objection.
Dissatisfied with the High Court decision, EIA and others appealed in the Court of Appeal raising five grounds of appeal.
They stated that the court fell into error by holding that failure to particularise the words complained of in a defamation matter such as this one was a matter of style and not a legal deficiency.
And that the High Court also erred in law and in fact when having found that the statement of claim was unhappily drafted, it failed at the minimum to order an amendment.
But the Court of Appeal Judges Mubanga Kondolo, Petronella Ngulube and Chishimba in a judgement rendered this month upheld the High Court’s ruling.
The Court of Appeal said that the lower court should not even have entertained the preliminary application by the second and third appellants, because they only filed a conditional memorandum of appearance, without a defence.
The court said also agreed with the lower court that the difference in the style of crafting of pleadings did not amount to a legal deficiency.
Judge Ngulube said that the respondents’ pleadings disclose a cause of action because the statement of claims does not only reproduce the articles and opinions, it mentions the persons who are allegedly defamed.
“For the foregoing reasons, we hereby dismiss this appeal for lack of merit. We, accordingly, uphold the ruling of the lower court and order that this matter be remitted back to the High Court for continued hearing. We award costs to the respondents, to be taxed in default of agreement,” ruled the court.
Author
