Lawyer presses with US$290k damages claim against ‘lying’ magistrate

A Harare lawyer is pressing on with her US$290 000 claim for damages against regional magistrate Vongai Guriro Muchuchuti whom she accuses of lying during court proceedings to damage her reputation. Millicent Moyo of Mutumbwa, Mugabe and Partners first made the claims against Muchuchuti in May through a letter of demand after the magistrate admonished her in court on February 14 for allegedly lying that businessman Georgios Katsimberis’ lawyer Tinomudaishe Chinyoka had travelled to South Africa for treatment while he was in Harare. Moyo was standing in for Chinyoka, who was not feeling well and had made an application to have Katsimberis’ trial postponed.  Muchuchuti was insisting on proceeding with the case without Chinyoka, who was eventually forced to rush to court in his bad condition before he could travel to South Africa for treatment. The magistrate claimed Moyo had lied to the court that Chinyo was already in South Africa. Despite Moyo vehemently denying making that claim, Muchuchuti labelled her unprofessional and the remarks attracted wide media attention. The lawyer also became a subject of investigations by the Law Society of Zimbabwe following a barrage of news articles. However, the court transcript signed by Muchuchuti revealed that Moyo never made the claims. The lawyer has now filed an application at the High Court through her lawyers, Warara and Associates demanding US120 000  and US$170 000  as damages for defamation. Moyo is also demanding interest at the prescribed rate from the date of summons to the date of payment and costs of the suit. In her declaration dated June 16, Moyo said Muchuchuti lied that she had told the court that Chinyoka had travelled to South Africa, accused her of failing to be diligent as a legal practitioner and said her conduct   bordered on unprofessionalism. She said Muchuchuti’s claims attracted negative publicity for her where she was accused of lying in court, a development that saw her being summoned by the Law Society of Zimbabwe. “The said statement was then published in a number of electronic and print newspapers as well as on various social media sites and was therefore republished, or was caused to be republished, or was foreseen to as capable of being republished by the first defendant (Muchuchuti) on the internet and social media, and was widely circulated in Zimbabwe and all over the world,” Moyo said. “As a result of the publication of this statement the Law Society of Zimbabwe, being the body that regulates the plaintiff in her profession, has instituted a misconduct enquiry that is a precursor to disciplinary proceedings.” She added: “The said statement by the first defendant stated and/or implied and /or had the secondary meaning about/of the plaintiff that: she had lied to the court; she was not diligent; she was unprofessional; she had sought a postponement of a case using lies; and she was guilty of the conduct unbecoming of a legal practitioner. “The contents of the statement are false and defamatory of the plaintiff in that they impute, and were intended by the first defendant to impute, and were understood by the persons to whom it was published to impute, that plaintiff, though a legal practitioner practising as such, was an unprofessional, dishonest and opportunistic lawyer with no moral fibre and a person unfit to hold the office of a legal practitioner, who was guilty of such unconscionable and despicable conduct unbecoming of a citizen and legal practitioner.” Moyo said Muchuchuti’s falsehoods diminished her esteem or standing in the eyes of ordinary Zimbabweans and had the potential of costing her clients as well as cast aspersions on her character, trade, business  and profession. “Plaintiff has, because of the defamation, been damaged in her reputation and has suffered damages in the sum of US$120,000.00,” she said. “Further, at the time that she uttered, transmitted and or otherwise published the statement, the first defendant knew that the representations concerning the plaintiff were without foundation and defamatory and false.  “Alternatively, at the time that she uttered, transmitted and or otherwise published the statement, the first defendant had no good faith basis for believing or stating that the plaintiff had lied in her application for a postponement.” Moyo said Muchuchuti’s allegations were made with malicious intent as she knew at the time that the statement was defamatory and false. “At the time that the first defendant uttered her statement her intention was for it to reach the widest possible audience,” she said. “Plaintiff has suffered and will suffer damages because of the false statement through loss of business. “The false statement and the representations in it are the cause of the loss of business.