News / National
Thomas Mapfumo claims $1,2 million defamation damages
16 Feb 2019 at 15:13hrs | Views
United STATES-based Zimbabwean Chimurenga music guru, Thomas 'Mukanya' Mapfumo has approached the High Court seeking over $1,2 million from a local journalist for allegedly defaming him following the publication of an article claiming he was broke and had been evicted from his lodgings over a $10 000 debt.
Mapfumo, popularly known as Mukanya, filed a $1,250 million litigation through his lawyers, Venturas and Samkange and the scribe, Tawanda Marwizi, is yet to respond to the litigation.
In his declaration, Mapfumo said the article was false and defamatory as it portrayed him as a musician of no integrity.
"The plaintiff (Mapfumo) is an American-based Zimbabwean and renowned international musician with a good reputation and impeccable character. He has received numerous recognitions, accolades and awards throughout the years for his good work and for being a good representative of Zimbabwe and its citizens. He has thousands if not millions of followers throughout the world," his lawyers said in the lawsuit.
"The article was false and defamatory. The article shows that the plaintiff is a musician of no integrity and is dishonest. This article was published and read by many people throughout the world, with some readers even contacting the plaintiff for verification, clarity and further details."
Mapfumo said he had taken issue with the journalist for failing to verify the facts with a view to establish the truthfulness of the matter.
"Defendant published the article without even verifying the accuracy and the truthfulness of the statement with the plaintiff. The statement was designed to humiliate and injure plaintiff's reputation in the eyes of his supporters and the world at large," he said, adding he does not owe anyone any amount, but rather he is owed by his promoters.
"The statement was false and defamatory. Plaintiff does not owe anyone the amount alleged or any amount for that matter. On the contrary, plaintiff is the one owed by the promoters' large sums of money. The statement was malicious and baseless. Plaintiff is, of good standing in society, with good reputation. Plaintiff is, therefore, entitled to claim damages as set out in the summons."
Mapfumo, popularly known as Mukanya, filed a $1,250 million litigation through his lawyers, Venturas and Samkange and the scribe, Tawanda Marwizi, is yet to respond to the litigation.
In his declaration, Mapfumo said the article was false and defamatory as it portrayed him as a musician of no integrity.
"The plaintiff (Mapfumo) is an American-based Zimbabwean and renowned international musician with a good reputation and impeccable character. He has received numerous recognitions, accolades and awards throughout the years for his good work and for being a good representative of Zimbabwe and its citizens. He has thousands if not millions of followers throughout the world," his lawyers said in the lawsuit.
"The article was false and defamatory. The article shows that the plaintiff is a musician of no integrity and is dishonest. This article was published and read by many people throughout the world, with some readers even contacting the plaintiff for verification, clarity and further details."
Mapfumo said he had taken issue with the journalist for failing to verify the facts with a view to establish the truthfulness of the matter.
"Defendant published the article without even verifying the accuracy and the truthfulness of the statement with the plaintiff. The statement was designed to humiliate and injure plaintiff's reputation in the eyes of his supporters and the world at large," he said, adding he does not owe anyone any amount, but rather he is owed by his promoters.
"The statement was false and defamatory. Plaintiff does not owe anyone the amount alleged or any amount for that matter. On the contrary, plaintiff is the one owed by the promoters' large sums of money. The statement was malicious and baseless. Plaintiff is, of good standing in society, with good reputation. Plaintiff is, therefore, entitled to claim damages as set out in the summons."
Source - newsday
