Mnangagwa wins $50 million defamation against Bhasikiti

JUSTICE minister Emmerson Mnangagwa's wife, Auxillia, and four others have won their $50 million defamation lawsuit against Masvingo Provincial Affairs minister Kudakwashe Bhasikiti after he failed to file opposing papers on time.

Bhasikiti, who together with axed Zanu-PF Midlands provincial chairman Jason Machaya and former spy Douglas Kanengoni are accused of authoring a defamatory letter against Auxillia, Gokwe Kana MP Owen Ncube, Douglas Tapfuma, July Moyo and McKenzie Ncube.

Bhasikiti allegedly failed to file opposing papers prompting the plaintiffs' lawyer Valentine Mutatu to apply to have the matter against him placed on the unopposed roll as an unopposed matter.

Seating in chambers last month, High Court judge Justice Lawrence Kamocha granted the order against Bhasikiti and also ordered that he pay costs of the suit.

"The third respondent's (Bhasikiti) defence under case No HC 2871/13 be and is hereby struck out, the applicant (Auxillia and others) be and is hereby ordered to set the matter as an unopposed matter on the unopposed roll and that 3rd respondent to pay the costs of this application," reads part order 0039770.

Auxillia and her compatriots filed damages amounting to

$10 million each after Kanengoni's internal petition in which he alleged the five had connived to rig internal Zanu-PF provincial elections in favour of their candidate Larry Mavhima in provincial elections leaked to the media.

Mavhima lost the polls to Machaya, but a faction aligned to Mnangagwa claimed the poll was littered with rigging and vote-buying.

Machaya and Kanengoni have refused to pay the damages accusing the Mnangagwa camp of being nothing, but sore losers.

Through their lawyers Sachikonye Ushe, the two said Auxilia, Moyo, Tapfuma, Owen Ncube and Daniel Makenzie Ncube had no case.

"This claim has been filed simply because the plaintiffs are bitter as a result of their loss in the elections," reads part of the response.

"The averments made in the election petition were true and correct and can easily be verified. The said petition was not a personal attack on the plaintiffs but was a candid revelation of the truth on the ground.

"Plaintiffs are therefore challenged to point out any malicious falsehoods made against them if any," reads the plea.