Mahere presses on with Gappah lawsuit, reduces $1m...

Mahere presses on with Gappah lawsuit, reduces $1m damages claim to $50 000

Zim Now Writer

Former Mt Pleasant Member of Parliament, Fadzayi Mahere, has reduced her defamation damages claim against author and lawyer, Petina Gappah from US$1 million to US$50 000.

This development comes after Gappah issued an apology for her statements about Mahere’s university admissions and personal life, which Mahere denied and claimed caused harm to her career.

The dispute began in September 2018 with a public Twitter exchange between the two. Mahere initially sought US$1 million in damages, but has now filed a notice of amendment reducing the claim. Gappah’s apology letter retracted her statements and offered a donation to a charity of Mahere’s choice.

She stated: “In order to bring a conclusive end to the legal action, I hereby fully and unequivocally retract all the statements that I made about her, both on Twitter and in subsequent legal pleadings, and tender a full, public and unreserved apology to Advocate Mahere for any pain, hurt or distress that were caused by my statements.”

However, Mahere’s legal team has questioned the sincerity of the apology.

The case has experienced twists, including a dismissed recusal application by Gappah against High Court Judge Joseph Mafusire. The judge said that the onus of proof lies with Gappah in this case.

Justice Mafusire also criticised Gappah’s legal team for their role in the recusal application.

“The applicant has unjustifiably gone personal. She has purported to superimpose her own misguided issues into the respondent’s cause. This is wrong. What is more, it is done in the most derogatory manner.

“Facts are deliberately twisted. An example is the refrain that I called her ‘wicked’. Yet that expression, in the leave to appeal judgment, was in reference to the self-serving philosophy that says justice is only justice when decisions are given in one’s favour.

“Unbelievably, both the applicant and her lawyers fail to grasp the simple point that by operation of the law, the nature of her defence to the respondent’s claim for defamation, quite apart from what may, or may not have been agreed upon at the pre-trial conference, is such that the onus of proof automatically shifts to her. This is quite elementary. But all these issues are now res judicata and should not continue to be recycled,” the judge said.