THE Lusaka High Court has restrained a Lusaka woman Dorah Likukela from issuing defamatory remarks against Lusaka lawyer Gilbert Phiri.
This is in a matter where Phiri has sued Likukela seeking damages for libel for alleging that he is a thief.
High Court judge Ruth Chibabuka has granted Phiri an ex-parte injunction prohibiting Likukela from further defaming him.
“Upon reading an affidavit of one Gilbert Phiri and upon the plaintiff undertaking to indemnify the defendant should it be found that the application was vexatious and frivolous,” judge Chibabuka said.
“It is hereby ordered that the defendant, whether by herself, her servants and or otherwise whosoever be and are restrained from further writing, commenting on and publishing defamatory articles against the plaintiff, pending the hearing of inter-parte summons for an interlocutory injunction.”
Phiri of PNP advocates in his statement of claim said that on November 16, 2019, Likukela on the Zambian Watchdog Facebook page wrote and published words in the comment section accusing him of stealing her property after an article entitled “Police, immigration ignore court order on Zambian of Somali origin”, was uploaded.
Phiri stated that Likukela said that “This is what I am against, the same lawyer Gilbert Phiri stole my Jeep Grand Cherokee and household goods which cost me U $300,000 on a false claim which he took before his relative judge and obtained a default judgment without affording me an opportunity to be heard when I do not even owe him. The K113,000 he claimed from me and I was never given my right to be heard,” she said.
Phiri contended that Likukela accused him of abusing and exploiting female court marshals to mishandle her file and they hide everything from her and to her surprise she only saw a mob attacking her and piercing her right rear tyre whilst she was driving.
Phiri felt that the words uttered by Likukela in their natural and ordinary meaning, meant that he was a thief, aggravated robber, bandit, corrupt, an assassin who was a less than honourable advocate at the bar who has abused the judiciary and the police.
He contended that the uncouth words were widely published on a platform accessed by a wide global audience.
He contended that his reputation had been seriously damaged and he had suffered considerable distress and embarrassment.
“Unless restrained by the court, the defendant would further publish or cause to be published the said or similar defamatory words to the plaintiff,” Phiri said.
The matter comes on December 11, 2019 for inter-parte hearing.