Home | News | ALLIANCE CHURCH FIGHTS E1.5M LAWSUIT

ALLIANCE CHURCH FIGHTS E1.5M LAWSUIT

Font size: Decrease font Enlarge font

MBABANE - The Alliance Church in Eswatini and its pastor, Reverend Johannes Mazibuko are opposing the of E1.5 million lawsuit which has been instituted against them by two members of the church.


The church members, Peter Maseko who is a businessman and Delisile Sibandze of Sidvwashini claim that Reverend Mazibuko and Malibongwe Dlamini who is the church board secretary of the Mbabane Branch impaired their dignity. Defendants in the matter are the church, Reverend Mazibuko and Dlamini.


In their particulars of claim, the plaintiffs (Maseko and Sibandze) claim that the incident first occurred on or about early 2019 in Mbabane.
It is alleged that the church board secretary (Dlamini) told Sibandze that he had obtained information that she had a travel document which was fairly new.
According to the particulars of claim, Dlamini allegedly further told Sibandze that based on the above information, he was aware that she had travelled to the Republic of South Africa with Maseko on various dates. These are allegations contained in particulars of claim whose veracity is still to be tested in court and the defendants are yet to file their papers.


“Reverend Mazibuko published by disclosing the allegations referred above to Maseko’s wife. Reverend Mazibuko had neither sought nor obtained Maseko’s consent when making the publication,” reads part of the claim.
In their opposing papers, Mazibuko and the church contended that the plaintiffs’ particulars of claim for invasion of privacy was bad in law and did not disclose a cause of action.


Through lawyers from Robinson Bertram, the church averred that in order to sustain a cause of action based on privacy, Maseko and Sibandze must demonstrate and prove the following; an unlawful intrusion on the personal affairs of someone without permission of justification; the sharing and/or disclosure or publication of private facts or personal information about a person without his or her permission.


Private


 It was further their contention that the plaintiff should prove where the disclosure and/or publication of those private facts took place.
“In so far as the plaintiffs claim for patrimonial loss in the sense of pure economic loss in reliance on the lex Aquilia, the plaintiff must also allege wrongfulness of the  defendants’ conduct and plead further facts in support of such an allegations,” argued the defendants (Mazibuko and the church). The lex Aquilia was a Roman law which provided compensation to the owners of property injured by someone’s fault.


According to the defendants, the plaintiffs did not pleaded any wrongfulness on the defendant’s conduct to support patrimonial claim neither had they pleaded any facts to support their economic loss on the lex Aquilia.
The duo of the church and the pastor further submitted that the plaintiffs had allegedly failed to demonstrate and/or plead the above allegations against either of the defendants.
“In the circumstances, the plaintiffs’ particulars of claim are bad in law and lack the necessary averments to sustain a cause of action against the defendants,” contended the defendants.
They then pleaded with the court to dismiss the plaintiffs’ particulars of claim for failing to disclose a cause of action against them.


 Meanwhile, Maseko and Sibandze averred that consequently, they were allegedly humiliated and demeaned by the defendant’s unlawful conduct and they suffered damages amounting to E1.5 million. Maseko claimed that for the alleged invasion of privacy he suffered damaged amounting to E1million while Sibandze wants E500 00 as compensation for the alleged invasion of privacy.


The duo submitted that, notwithstanding demand, the defendant had allegedly refused, failed and/or neglected to pay them.
In both their claim, the plaintiffs want the court to direct the defendants to pay the different amounts they were claiming with interest at the rate of nine per cent per annum from the date of issue of summons to date of final payment.
The matter is still pending in court.

Comments (0 posted):

Post your comment comment

Please enter the code you see in the image: