By GRACE CHAILE LESOETSA
CHIPOLOPOLO striker Fashion Sakala has been sued by his alleged lover seeking an interim injunction to stop him from invading her privacy or threatening to circulate obscene content of her.
Ms Linnety Kaoma alleges that she and married Sakala had been in a four-year long intimate relationship which ended in May, this year, after the Zambian striker begun having an affair with one of her young sisters.
Ms Kaoma submitted that during the course of the relationship with Sakala, the two would often engage via WhatsApp video calling, and usually do so whilst taking showers, or while engaging in some virtual intimacy of some sort.
This is according to documents filed in the Lusaka High Court by Kaoma’s lawyers.
In an affidavit in support of exparte summons for an order for leave to issue or serve writ of summons out of jurisdiction, Ms Kaoma lamented that Sakala who plays for Scottish football giants, Glasgow Rangers has been invading her privacy, solitude and seclusion.
“The defendant had, toward the end of the relationship tormented the plaintiff by continuously threatening the plaintiff by stating that he was armed with a lot of damaging content of her and that he would ‘spill the beans’ at any time, and at will,” she stated.
She stated that the player had, via email confirmed and confessed that he had, either by himself or other persons been previously hacking into her phone, the same of which made her uneasy and be wary of her safety.
“On one occasion, whilst the parties were engaging in their usual virtual intimacy, via the video call, Sakala did, without the knowledge or consent of Ms Kaoma take a screenshot of the video call, capturing the likeness of the plaintiff in an image that would be considered not only obscene, but also offensive to a reasonable third party viewing the photo,” she said.
Ms Kaoma submitted that after Sakala had captured the photo, without her permission took to publish the photo by sending it to her young sister, however deleted after few minutes upon realising his folly.
“That as can be seen from the originating process, part of the claims the plaintiff intends on pursuing against the defendant are an order for an interim injunction restraining the defendant by himself, his servants, agents and or whomever connected to him by whatever means from invading the plaintiffs right to privacy, solitude and seclusion, by way of publishing and/or circulating any material reasonably deemed absence / offensive , and bearing the likeness of the plaintiff,” Ms Kaoma submitted.
