Manikai v Mawarire: Zimbabwe High Court Dismisses Defamation Appeal

• The High Court has dismissed lawyer Edwin Isaac Manikai's application for leave to appeal against an earlier ruling striking his urgent chamber application off the roll.
• Manikai's underlying defamation claim against activist Jealousy Mbizvo Mawarire will now proceed on the ordinary court roll rather than through an urgent chamber application.
• The decision highlights the importance of identifying applicants personally in defamatory content when seeking urgent relief, and sets out clear guidelines for applicants seeking urgent relief under Rule 60(18) of the High Court Rules.

There is nowhere in the order where I stated that the applicant was not defamed… My remarks were confined to the issue of urgency and not to the substantive merits of defamation.

The High Court's dismissal of lawyer Edwin Isaac Manikai's application for leave to appeal has significant implications for his defamation claim against activist Jealousy Mbizvo Mawarire. The underlying claim, which alleges that two articles published on Mawarire's X page were defamatory, will now proceed on the ordinary court roll rather than through an urgent chamber application. This means that Manikai's lawyers will have to argue the merits of the case in a more formal setting, rather than seeking immediate relief from the court. The decision is seen as a setback for Manikai, who had sought to remove the articles and prevent further damage to his reputation.

The ruling highlights the importance of identifying applicants personally in defamatory content when seeking urgent relief. Justice Esther Muremba's decision was based on the fact that the articles did not specifically identify Manikai as the person referred to, and therefore there was no basis for inferring that the reference was to him. This is a significant precedent in Zimbabwean defamation law, as it sets out clear guidelines for applicants seeking urgent relief. Rule 60(18) of the High Court Rules also came under scrutiny in this case, with Justice Muremba ruling that an oral hearing is not required before striking off an application for lack of urgency.

The decision has important implications for lawyers advising clients on social media use. It highlights the need to carefully consider the language used in online content and ensure that it does not give rise to potential defamation claims. The ruling also underscores the importance of following proper procedures when seeking urgent relief, including ensuring that applicants are personally identified in defamatory content. As a result, lawyers will need to be more cautious in their advice to clients on social media use and ensure that they are aware of the potential risks and consequences.

Lawyers advising clients on social media use should note that a Zimbabwean court has ruled that an applicant must be personally identified in defamatory content for urgent relief, and that Rule 60(18) does not require an oral hearing before striking off an application for lack of urgency.

Source: Original reporting via Top lawyer Manikai suffers fresh blow in Mawarire defamation case