The Lusaka High Court has granted Lusaka lawyer Gilbert Phiri an ex-parte injunction restraining a woman of unknown profession from further writing, commenting or publishing any defamatory articles against him.
In this matter, Phiri has sued Dorah Namasiku Likukela, seeking damages for libel for accusing him of abusing the judicial process and State machinery.
Phiri of Messrs PNP Advocates was also seeking an injunction restraining the said woman whether by herself, her servants or agents or otherwise from further publishing any words similarly defamatory to him, interest on the sums found due and any other relief the court may deem fit.
High Court judge Ruth Chibabuka has now granted Phiri an ex-parte injunction restraining Likukela from further defaming him.
“Upon reading an affidavit of one Gilbert Phiri and upon the plaintiff undertaking to indemnify the defendant should it be found that the application was vexatious and frivolous; it is hereby ordered that the defendant, whether by herself, her servants and or otherwise howsoever be and are restrained from further writing, commenting on and publishing defamatory articles against the plaintiff, pending the hearing of inter-parte summons for an interlocutory injunction,” read the ex-parte order for an interim injunction dated December 4.
The matter comes up on December 11, this year, for inter-parte hearing.
In a statement of claim filed in the Lusaka High Court, November 19, Phiri explained that on November 16, this year, Likukela wrote in the comments section on Zambian Watchdog’s Facebook page after an article entitled “Police, immigration ignore court order on Zambian of Somali origin” was published.
He stated that Likukela wrote among other allegations, “This is what I’m against. The same lawyer, Gilbert Phiri, stole my Jeep Grand Cherokee and household goods which cost me U$300,000 on a false claim which he took before his relative judge and obtained a default judgement without according me an opportunity to be heard when I do not even owe him the K113,000…”
“Who is he to tell the court he abused, the judicial system he undermined and the police he corruptly induced to support him with aggravated robbery of my belongings, in giving harass (sic) corpus to someone else when he hasn’t yet accounted for violating my rights, including my right to life, for which he has been attempting to assassinate me through other people…I am walking, suffering and wearing and eating things I am not accustomed to because Gilbert Phiri robbed me.”
Phiri stated that Likukela’s words in their natural and ordinary meaning meant and were understood to mean that he was thief, aggravated robber, bandit, corrupt, an assassin who was a less than honourable advocate at the bar, who had abused the judiciary and the police.
He added that the said uncouth words were widely published on a platform that was accessed by a wide global audience.
Phiri further stated that his reputation had been seriously damaged and he had suffered considerable distress and embarrassment.
“Unless restrained by this honourable court, the defendant will further publish or cause to be published the said or similar words defamatory of the plaintiff,” stated Phiri.