E500 000 COMPENSATION: ELIJAH FIRE LOSES APPEAL AGAINST APOSTLE JUSTICE

MBABANE – “If there were to be criticism, it would be that the court a quo was very lenient when determining the award.”

This was stated by Supreme Court Judge Magriet van der Walt when dismissing Prophet Elijah Mkhemetelo Muzi Mkhatjwa’s appeal.          

Mkhatjwa had been ordered by the High Court to pay Apostle Justice Dlamini E500 000 compensation - an order that has been reaffirmed by the Supreme Court.

Apostle Dlamini is the leader of Worship Centre International. He had sought E10 million for defamatory allegations made by Mkhatjwa. However, Judge Zonke Magagula awarded him E500 000.

Mkhatjwa then appealed to the Supreme Court, where Judges Van der Walt, Mbutfo Mamba and Nkululeko Hlophe upheld the lower court’s decision, emphasising the severe consequences of online defamation.

Recordings

The case arose from WhatsApp audio recordings, in which Prophet Mkhatjwa, the founder of Hope Restoration Church, made damaging allegations against Apostle Dlamini, a fellow church leader.

These included claims that Apostle Dlamini had bribed a journalist to publish negative articles and that a domestic worker had witnessed a snake with a human head and hair in his residence.

The High Court’s initial award of E500 000 was challenged by Prophet Mkhatjwa as excessive. The Supreme Court, however, found no grounds to overturn the ruling, highlighting the severity of the defamatory statements and their wide dissemination via social media.

The Supreme Court’s judgment reaffirmed key legal principles regarding defamation, particularly in the digital age.  

It confirmed that a person can be held liable for defamation even if they did not directly publish the material, provided they knew or should have reasonably foreseen its distribution.

This principle is particularly relevant to social media, where content spreads rapidly.

The judgment acknowledged the unique challenges of online defamation, noting the difficulty in accurately measuring the reach of defamatory content and its potential for indefinite retention and sharing.

The court stressed that while previous awards offer guidance, each case must be assessed on its own merits, considering factors such as the plaintiff’s character and status, the nature and extent of the publication, and the severity of the imputation.

The court indicated it would only intervene if the lower court failed to exercise its jurisdiction judicially.

In cases where the plaintiff’s initial claim is deemed ‘astronomical’, the court may order a proportional recovery of costs, rather than the full amount, to prevent defendants from being unduly burdened.

The Supreme Court highlighted that Prophet Mkhatjwa admitted liability for defamation but contested the damages. His failure to issue a public apology and retraction, despite promising to do so, aggravated the damages. The court also considered Apostle Dlamini’s large audience, including church congregations, radio listeners and online followers.

It was noted that the defamatory material had spread beyond Eswatini’s borders. The court found no evidence to support the claim that the apology was conditional on Apostle Dlamini not pursuing legal action.

This judgment serves as a stark reminder of the potential consequences of defamatory statements, particularly online. Judge Van der Walt stated that the bribery allegations imputed dishonesty, and the snake allegations imputed unnatural, evil and unChristian practices. “Had the respondent filed a cross-appeal in respect of the amount, the award may well have been increased on appeal,” she said.

In conclusion, the court found no justification to interfere with the awarded amount. It dismissed the appeal and awarded costs to Apostle Dlamini, who was represented by Sidumo Mdladla of S.V. Mdladla and Associates.

The case underscores the increasing importance of responsible online communication and the need for individuals to be mindful of the legal ramifications of their words.       

Post your comment

Your name:

Your e-mail address:

Add your comments:

Please enter the code you see in the image:

Image:

Code: