News / National
Top lawyer loses bid to gag Jealousy Mawarire
4 hrs ago |
109 Views
Senior lawyer Edwin Isaac Manikai has applied for leave to appeal a High Court ruling that struck his urgent application against journalist and activist Jealousy Mbizvo Mawarire off the roll.
The dispute stems from social media posts published on Mawarire's X account in late March and early April, in which he alleged that a person named "Manikai" acted as a courier for a large sum of money linked to a controversial constitutional court application tied to Constitutional Amendment (No. 3) Bill.
Manikai, a founding partner at Dube, Manikai & Hwacha and chairman of the Presidential Advisory Council, denied the allegations and sought an urgent court order compelling Mawarire to remove the posts and stop further publication.
However, in a ruling delivered on April 9, 2026, Esther Muremba struck the matter off the roll of urgent applications.
The court found that the posts did not clearly identify the applicant, noting that "Manikai" is not a name unique to him. The judge also ruled that the interim relief sought was procedurally flawed, as it was not tied to a substantive final order but instead linked to a damages summons to be filed within 30 days.
Manikai's legal team has challenged the ruling, arguing that the court erred in dismissing the matter without a full hearing and improperly made factual findings on defamation in chambers.
They further contend that the court wrongly rejected their argument that the interim interdict sought falls within recognised legal exceptions.
Mawarire, represented by Mkhuhlani Chiperesa, has opposed the application, arguing that no right of appeal exists where a matter has simply been struck off the urgent roll.
In his submissions, Mawarire also maintained that the application was an abuse of court process and an attempt to stifle constitutionally protected freedoms of expression and political participation.
He further argued that, as a public figure and adviser to President Emmerson Mnangagwa, Manikai is subject to heightened public scrutiny.
The High Court is yet to rule on the application for leave to appeal, which will determine whether the matter proceeds to a higher court or returns to the ordinary roll for hearing.
The dispute stems from social media posts published on Mawarire's X account in late March and early April, in which he alleged that a person named "Manikai" acted as a courier for a large sum of money linked to a controversial constitutional court application tied to Constitutional Amendment (No. 3) Bill.
Manikai, a founding partner at Dube, Manikai & Hwacha and chairman of the Presidential Advisory Council, denied the allegations and sought an urgent court order compelling Mawarire to remove the posts and stop further publication.
However, in a ruling delivered on April 9, 2026, Esther Muremba struck the matter off the roll of urgent applications.
The court found that the posts did not clearly identify the applicant, noting that "Manikai" is not a name unique to him. The judge also ruled that the interim relief sought was procedurally flawed, as it was not tied to a substantive final order but instead linked to a damages summons to be filed within 30 days.
Manikai's legal team has challenged the ruling, arguing that the court erred in dismissing the matter without a full hearing and improperly made factual findings on defamation in chambers.
They further contend that the court wrongly rejected their argument that the interim interdict sought falls within recognised legal exceptions.
Mawarire, represented by Mkhuhlani Chiperesa, has opposed the application, arguing that no right of appeal exists where a matter has simply been struck off the urgent roll.
In his submissions, Mawarire also maintained that the application was an abuse of court process and an attempt to stifle constitutionally protected freedoms of expression and political participation.
He further argued that, as a public figure and adviser to President Emmerson Mnangagwa, Manikai is subject to heightened public scrutiny.
The High Court is yet to rule on the application for leave to appeal, which will determine whether the matter proceeds to a higher court or returns to the ordinary roll for hearing.
Source - ZimLive
Join the discussion
Loading comments…
