Fadzayi Mahere and Petina Gappah
By News Hour
HARARE – High Court Judge Justice Joseph Mafusire has ordered author Petina Gappah to pay former Mount Pleasant lawmaker Fadzayi Mahere US$18,000 in damages for defamatory remarks made on X (formerly Twitter) in September 2018.
The dispute began when Gappah accused Mahere of misconduct regarding her university admissions and personal life on social media.
Mahere vehemently denied these allegations and subsequently sued Gappah for US$1 million, alleging damage to her career.
Gappah in a twist of events later issued an apology letter, retracted her statements, and offered to donate to a charity chosen by Mahere.
However, Mahere’s legal team deemed the apology insufficient, arguing that Gappah did not publicly acknowledge the falsehood of her statements.
The case experienced several developments, including Gappah’s unsuccessful attempt to recuse Justice Mafusire from the proceedings. This led to a reduction of the damages claim from US$1 million to US$50,000.
Justice Mafusire’s ruling requires Gappah to pay Mahere US$18,000 in damages, plus interest at a rate of 5% per annum from the date of judgment until payment is made, as well as Mahere’s legal costs.
The payment may be made in local currency at the prevailing exchange rate.
In his ruling, Justice Mafusire stated: “I determine that the plaintiff is entitled to her costs but not on the higher scale.
“My reason for this is that whilst the defamatory statements by the defendant were vile and persistent, the stiff award of damages above has been in recognition of that factor, among others.
“Furthermore, the defendant lost all the interlocutory applications with costs being awarded against her there and then. None were held over for determination later as is sometimes done,” ruled Mufusire.
He continued: “In the recusal application, the costs were awarded on the higher scale.
“There is no reason to mulct the defendant any further. Lastly, the plaintiff’s summons was not issued in October 2020, but in October 2018 when the monetary regime in place was different from the one-to-one ratio referred to by her.
“So it cannot have been the reason for the initially inflated claim,” ruled Mufusire.
