Court grants Nakacinda interim injunction in his case against Prime TV

Filed under: Breaking News,Politics |

Lusaka High Court Judge Elita Mwikisa has granted Raphael Nakacinda an interim injunction restraining Prime TV from publishing any material from the interview in which the TV station allegedly defamed him or anything related to the alleged defamatory publication.

This is in a matter where Nakacinda sued the private TV station and its staffer Kalani Muchima for defamation of character for allegedly calling him a thief and a convict during the popular talk show dubbed ‘Oxygen of Democracy’ in May this year.
He also applied for an order of interim injunction restraining the plaintiffs for further defaming him.
Nakachinda deposed therein that on 20 April 2018, the respondents (Akakulubelwa Akakulubelwa, 1st defendant,  Gerald Shawa, 2nd defendant and Kalani Muchima, 3rd defendant) caused to be broadcast an interview where he was called a thief and a convict.
“… the said defamatory interview had continued to be streamlined online, causing him to suffer further damage. That as a result of the said defamatory interview, his name has been put in disrepute and has lowered his image in the eyes of the members of the public. That even after requesting the respondents to retract their statements, they have refused and or neglected to do so. This publication has continued to injure (Nakachinda) in the political arena as well as in the business world as he is a politician and a businessman,” read part of the application supported by an affidavit sworn by Raphael Nakachinda.
In its ruling dated September 26, 2018, the Lusaka High Court Judge stated that it was not in dispute that the interview where it was alleged that the applicant (Nakachinda) was called a thief took place.
“I have carefully considered the evidence on record and I am of the view that there is a serious dispute to be tried at the main trial. It It’s official s not in dispute that the interview where it is alleged the applicant was called a thief took place. I have examined both copies of the alleged interview from the Applicant and Respondents and I find that there is some basis on which the Applicant feels entitled to an order of interim injunction as the words allegedly complained of, namely of being a thief can damage his reputation as a politician.”
“I am of the considered view that damages will not be adequate if the injunction were not granted to the Applicant in that he would suffer irreparable injury. I find that the balance of convenience lies with the Applicant rather than the Respondents as his reputation would suffer more if the Respondents were left at liberty to continue publishing articles that have the propensity of further damaging the Applicant’s reputation. It is for these reasons that I hereby confirm the order is f interim injunction earlier granted to the Applicant on 8 June 2018,” Judge Mwikisa ordered.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Start: 2019-07-01 End: 2019-07-31