By Mary TaruvingaTHE Mutare High Court has dismissed an application by Rusape Town Council seeking to permanently bar a local resident from publicly criticising the municipality over its controversial tender processes.Justice Sijabuliso Siziba handed down the ruling on Thursday, discharging an interim interdict previously granted in March against Takudzwa Noel Mwashaenyi.The interdict had prohibited Mwashaenyi from posting or circulating materials on social media relating to a $850,000 tender awarded to Hurntspine Enterprises (Pvt) Ltd for the redevelopment of a municipal building into a modern shopping mall.The council, represented by Absalom & Shepherd Attorneys, accused Mwashaenyi of defamation, alleging that he had circulated false and damaging information on WhatsApp and email, claiming the tender process was corrupt, lacked transparency, and that the winning firm was unqualified.In response, Mwashaenyi, through his lawyer, Leonard Chigadza of the Zimbabwe Lawyers for Human Rights (ZLHR) argued that his actions were protected under the constitutional right to freedom of expression.He insisted his comments constituted fair public criticism and were based on publicly available information.Justice Siziba ruled that, as a public body, Rusape Town Council had no legal standing to seek protection from reputational harm through a defamation interdict.“A local authority like the applicant cannot be allowed to muzzle public criticism under the guise that its reputation is at stake,” the judge wrote, citing both Zimbabwean and international case law emphasising the need for transparency and democratic accountability.The judge further noted that although some of Mwashaenyi’s claims were “inaccurate and misinformed,” including allegations about the non-existence of the developer and claims of improper payments, this did not justify limiting his freedom of expression.“Being a public body and a State organ, a local authority… is there to serve the public and it cannot therefore be allowed to sue for defamation to protect its own public image or pecuniary interests,” the judgment read.“There can be no doubt that the freedom of expression, coupled with the corollary right to receive and impart information, is a core value of any democratic society deserving of the utmost legal protection.“As such, it is prominently recognised and entrenched in virtually every international and regional human rights instrument,” Siziba noted.He added, “This court too has had occasion to recognise the freedom of expression as a core value of a free and democratic society.“The importance of the right to freedom of expression has often been stressed by our courts. Suppression of available information and of ideas can only be detrimental to the decision-making process of individuals, corporations and governments.“It may lead to the wrong government being elected, the wrong policies being adopted, the wrong people being appointed, corruption, dishonesty and incompetence not being exposed, wrong investments being made and a multitude of other undesirable consequences.“It is for this reason that it has been said that freedom of expression constitutes one of the essential foundations of a democratic society and is one of the basic conditions for its progress and the development of man.”He ruled, “I am therefore convinced that the interdict sought by the applicant is not supported by the law. It is contrary to it.
Its effect will be far reaching in curtailing the fundamental rights of the citizens to express themselves and freely monitor the activities of local authorities to the detriment of good governance and service delivery.“On the basis of the above considerations, the application cannot succeed for lack of merit.”The court dismissed all preliminary objections raised by both parties and made no order as to costs.
THE Mutare High Court has dismissed an application by Rusape Town Council seeking to permanently bar a local resident from publicly criticising the municipality over its controversial tender processes.
Justice Sijabuliso Siziba handed down the ruling on Thursday, discharging an interim interdict previously granted in March against Takudzwa Noel Mwashaenyi.The interdict had prohibited Mwashaenyi from posting or circulating materials on social media relating to a $850,000 tender awarded to Hurntspine Enterprises (Pvt) Ltd for the redevelopment of a municipal building into a modern shopping mall.The council, represented by Absalom & Shepherd Attorneys, accused Mwashaenyi of defamation, alleging that he had circulated false and damaging information on WhatsApp and email, claiming the tender process was corrupt, lacked transparency, and that the winning firm was unqualified.In response, Mwashaenyi, through his lawyer, Leonard Chigadza of the Zimbabwe Lawyers for Human Rights (ZLHR) argued that his actions were protected under the constitutional right to freedom of expression.He insisted his comments constituted fair public criticism and were based on publicly available information.Justice Siziba ruled that, as a public body, Rusape Town Council had no legal standing to seek protection from reputational harm through a defamation interdict.“A local authority like the applicant cannot be allowed to muzzle public criticism under the guise that its reputation is at stake,” the judge wrote, citing both Zimbabwean and international case law emphasising the need for transparency and democratic accountability.The judge further noted that although some of Mwashaenyi’s claims were “inaccurate and misinformed,” including allegations about the non-existence of the developer and claims of improper payments, this did not justify limiting his freedom of expression.“Being a public body and a State organ, a local authority… is there to serve the public and it cannot therefore be allowed to sue for defamation to protect its own public image or pecuniary interests,” the judgment read.“There can be no doubt that the freedom of expression, coupled with the corollary right to receive and impart information, is a core value of any democratic society deserving of the utmost legal protection.“As such, it is prominently recognised and entrenched in virtually every international and regional human rights instrument,” Siziba noted.He added, “This court too has had occasion to recognise the freedom of expression as a core value of a free and democratic society.“The importance of the right to freedom of expression has often been stressed by our courts. Suppression of available information and of ideas can only be detrimental to the decision-making process of individuals, corporations and governments.“It may lead to the wrong government being elected, the wrong policies being adopted, the wrong people being appointed, corruption, dishonesty and incompetence not being exposed, wrong investments being made and a multitude of other undesirable consequences.“It is for this reason that it has been said that freedom of expression constitutes one of the essential foundations of a democratic society and is one of the basic conditions for its progress and the development of man.”He ruled, “I am therefore convinced that the interdict sought by the applicant is not supported by the law. It is contrary to it.
Its effect will be far reaching in curtailing the fundamental rights of the citizens to express themselves and freely monitor the activities of local authorities to the detriment of good governance and service delivery.“On the basis of the above considerations, the application cannot succeed for lack of merit.”The court dismissed all preliminary objections raised by both parties and made no order as to costs.
Justice Sijabuliso Siziba handed down the ruling on Thursday, discharging an interim interdict previously granted in March against Takudzwa Noel Mwashaenyi.
The interdict had prohibited Mwashaenyi from posting or circulating materials on social media relating to a $850,000 tender awarded to Hurntspine Enterprises (Pvt) Ltd for the redevelopment of a municipal building into a modern shopping mall.The council, represented by Absalom & Shepherd Attorneys, accused Mwashaenyi of defamation, alleging that he had circulated false and damaging information on WhatsApp and email, claiming the tender process was corrupt, lacked transparency, and that the winning firm was unqualified.In response, Mwashaenyi, through his lawyer, Leonard Chigadza of the Zimbabwe Lawyers for Human Rights (ZLHR) argued that his actions were protected under the constitutional right to freedom of expression.He insisted his comments constituted fair public criticism and were based on publicly available information.Justice Siziba ruled that, as a public body, Rusape Town Council had no legal standing to seek protection from reputational harm through a defamation interdict.“A local authority like the applicant cannot be allowed to muzzle public criticism under the guise that its reputation is at stake,” the judge wrote, citing both Zimbabwean and international case law emphasising the need for transparency and democratic accountability.The judge further noted that although some of Mwashaenyi’s claims were “inaccurate and misinformed,” including allegations about the non-existence of the developer and claims of improper payments, this did not justify limiting his freedom of expression.“Being a public body and a State organ, a local authority… is there to serve the public and it cannot therefore be allowed to sue for defamation to protect its own public image or pecuniary interests,” the judgment read.“There can be no doubt that the freedom of expression, coupled with the corollary right to receive and impart information, is a core value of any democratic society deserving of the utmost legal protection.“As such, it is prominently recognised and entrenched in virtually every international and regional human rights instrument,” Siziba noted.He added, “This court too has had occasion to recognise the freedom of expression as a core value of a free and democratic society.“The importance of the right to freedom of expression has often been stressed by our courts. Suppression of available information and of ideas can only be detrimental to the decision-making process of individuals, corporations and governments.“It may lead to the wrong government being elected, the wrong policies being adopted, the wrong people being appointed, corruption, dishonesty and incompetence not being exposed, wrong investments being made and a multitude of other undesirable consequences.“It is for this reason that it has been said that freedom of expression constitutes one of the essential foundations of a democratic society and is one of the basic conditions for its progress and the development of man.”He ruled, “I am therefore convinced that the interdict sought by the applicant is not supported by the law. It is contrary to it.
Its effect will be far reaching in curtailing the fundamental rights of the citizens to express themselves and freely monitor the activities of local authorities to the detriment of good governance and service delivery.“On the basis of the above considerations, the application cannot succeed for lack of merit.”The court dismissed all preliminary objections raised by both parties and made no order as to costs.
The interdict had prohibited Mwashaenyi from posting or circulating materials on social media relating to a $850,000 tender awarded to Hurntspine Enterprises (Pvt) Ltd for the redevelopment of a municipal building into a modern shopping mall.
The council, represented by Absalom & Shepherd Attorneys, accused Mwashaenyi of defamation, alleging that he had circulated false and damaging information on WhatsApp and email, claiming the tender process was corrupt, lacked transparency, and that the winning firm was unqualified.In response, Mwashaenyi, through his lawyer, Leonard Chigadza of the Zimbabwe Lawyers for Human Rights (ZLHR) argued that his actions were protected under the constitutional right to freedom of expression.He insisted his comments constituted fair public criticism and were based on publicly available information.Justice Siziba ruled that, as a public body, Rusape Town Council had no legal standing to seek protection from reputational harm through a defamation interdict.“A local authority like the applicant cannot be allowed to muzzle public criticism under the guise that its reputation is at stake,” the judge wrote, citing both Zimbabwean and international case law emphasising the need for transparency and democratic accountability.The judge further noted that although some of Mwashaenyi’s claims were “inaccurate and misinformed,” including allegations about the non-existence of the developer and claims of improper payments, this did not justify limiting his freedom of expression.“Being a public body and a State organ, a local authority… is there to serve the public and it cannot therefore be allowed to sue for defamation to protect its own public image or pecuniary interests,” the judgment read.“There can be no doubt that the freedom of expression, coupled with the corollary right to receive and impart information, is a core value of any democratic society deserving of the utmost legal protection.“As such, it is prominently recognised and entrenched in virtually every international and regional human rights instrument,” Siziba noted.He added, “This court too has had occasion to recognise the freedom of expression as a core value of a free and democratic society.“The importance of the right to freedom of expression has often been stressed by our courts. Suppression of available information and of ideas can only be detrimental to the decision-making process of individuals, corporations and governments.“It may lead to the wrong government being elected, the wrong policies being adopted, the wrong people being appointed, corruption, dishonesty and incompetence not being exposed, wrong investments being made and a multitude of other undesirable consequences.“It is for this reason that it has been said that freedom of expression constitutes one of the essential foundations of a democratic society and is one of the basic conditions for its progress and the development of man.”He ruled, “I am therefore convinced that the interdict sought by the applicant is not supported by the law. It is contrary to it.
Its effect will be far reaching in curtailing the fundamental rights of the citizens to express themselves and freely monitor the activities of local authorities to the detriment of good governance and service delivery.“On the basis of the above considerations, the application cannot succeed for lack of merit.”The court dismissed all preliminary objections raised by both parties and made no order as to costs.
The council, represented by Absalom & Shepherd Attorneys, accused Mwashaenyi of defamation, alleging that he had circulated false and damaging information on WhatsApp and email, claiming the tender process was corrupt, lacked transparency, and that the winning firm was unqualified.
In response, Mwashaenyi, through his lawyer, Leonard Chigadza of the Zimbabwe Lawyers for Human Rights (ZLHR) argued that his actions were protected under the constitutional right to freedom of expression.He insisted his comments constituted fair public criticism and were based on publicly available information.Justice Siziba ruled that, as a public body, Rusape Town Council had no legal standing to seek protection from reputational harm through a defamation interdict.“A local authority like the applicant cannot be allowed to muzzle public criticism under the guise that its reputation is at stake,” the judge wrote, citing both Zimbabwean and international case law emphasising the need for transparency and democratic accountability.The judge further noted that although some of Mwashaenyi’s claims were “inaccurate and misinformed,” including allegations about the non-existence of the developer and claims of improper payments, this did not justify limiting his freedom of expression.“Being a public body and a State organ, a local authority… is there to serve the public and it cannot therefore be allowed to sue for defamation to protect its own public image or pecuniary interests,” the judgment read.“There can be no doubt that the freedom of expression, coupled with the corollary right to receive and impart information, is a core value of any democratic society deserving of the utmost legal protection.“As such, it is prominently recognised and entrenched in virtually every international and regional human rights instrument,” Siziba noted.He added, “This court too has had occasion to recognise the freedom of expression as a core value of a free and democratic society.“The importance of the right to freedom of expression has often been stressed by our courts. Suppression of available information and of ideas can only be detrimental to the decision-making process of individuals, corporations and governments.“It may lead to the wrong government being elected, the wrong policies being adopted, the wrong people being appointed, corruption, dishonesty and incompetence not being exposed, wrong investments being made and a multitude of other undesirable consequences.“It is for this reason that it has been said that freedom of expression constitutes one of the essential foundations of a democratic society and is one of the basic conditions for its progress and the development of man.”He ruled, “I am therefore convinced that the interdict sought by the applicant is not supported by the law. It is contrary to it.
Its effect will be far reaching in curtailing the fundamental rights of the citizens to express themselves and freely monitor the activities of local authorities to the detriment of good governance and service delivery.“On the basis of the above considerations, the application cannot succeed for lack of merit.”The court dismissed all preliminary objections raised by both parties and made no order as to costs.
In response, Mwashaenyi, through his lawyer, Leonard Chigadza of the Zimbabwe Lawyers for Human Rights (ZLHR) argued that his actions were protected under the constitutional right to freedom of expression.
He insisted his comments constituted fair public criticism and were based on publicly available information.Justice Siziba ruled that, as a public body, Rusape Town Council had no legal standing to seek protection from reputational harm through a defamation interdict.“A local authority like the applicant cannot be allowed to muzzle public criticism under the guise that its reputation is at stake,” the judge wrote, citing both Zimbabwean and international case law emphasising the need for transparency and democratic accountability.The judge further noted that although some of Mwashaenyi’s claims were “inaccurate and misinformed,” including allegations about the non-existence of the developer and claims of improper payments, this did not justify limiting his freedom of expression.“Being a public body and a State organ, a local authority… is there to serve the public and it cannot therefore be allowed to sue for defamation to protect its own public image or pecuniary interests,” the judgment read.“There can be no doubt that the freedom of expression, coupled with the corollary right to receive and impart information, is a core value of any democratic society deserving of the utmost legal protection.“As such, it is prominently recognised and entrenched in virtually every international and regional human rights instrument,” Siziba noted.He added, “This court too has had occasion to recognise the freedom of expression as a core value of a free and democratic society.“The importance of the right to freedom of expression has often been stressed by our courts. Suppression of available information and of ideas can only be detrimental to the decision-making process of individuals, corporations and governments.“It may lead to the wrong government being elected, the wrong policies being adopted, the wrong people being appointed, corruption, dishonesty and incompetence not being exposed, wrong investments being made and a multitude of other undesirable consequences.“It is for this reason that it has been said that freedom of expression constitutes one of the essential foundations of a democratic society and is one of the basic conditions for its progress and the development of man.”He ruled, “I am therefore convinced that the interdict sought by the applicant is not supported by the law. It is contrary to it.
Its effect will be far reaching in curtailing the fundamental rights of the citizens to express themselves and freely monitor the activities of local authorities to the detriment of good governance and service delivery.“On the basis of the above considerations, the application cannot succeed for lack of merit.”The court dismissed all preliminary objections raised by both parties and made no order as to costs.
He insisted his comments constituted fair public criticism and were based on publicly available information.
Justice Siziba ruled that, as a public body, Rusape Town Council had no legal standing to seek protection from reputational harm through a defamation interdict.“A local authority like the applicant cannot be allowed to muzzle public criticism under the guise that its reputation is at stake,” the judge wrote, citing both Zimbabwean and international case law emphasising the need for transparency and democratic accountability.The judge further noted that although some of Mwashaenyi’s claims were “inaccurate and misinformed,” including allegations about the non-existence of the developer and claims of improper payments, this did not justify limiting his freedom of expression.“Being a public body and a State organ, a local authority… is there to serve the public and it cannot therefore be allowed to sue for defamation to protect its own public image or pecuniary interests,” the judgment read.“There can be no doubt that the freedom of expression, coupled with the corollary right to receive and impart information, is a core value of any democratic society deserving of the utmost legal protection.“As such, it is prominently recognised and entrenched in virtually every international and regional human rights instrument,” Siziba noted.He added, “This court too has had occasion to recognise the freedom of expression as a core value of a free and democratic society.“The importance of the right to freedom of expression has often been stressed by our courts. Suppression of available information and of ideas can only be detrimental to the decision-making process of individuals, corporations and governments.“It may lead to the wrong government being elected, the wrong policies being adopted, the wrong people being appointed, corruption, dishonesty and incompetence not being exposed, wrong investments being made and a multitude of other undesirable consequences.“It is for this reason that it has been said that freedom of expression constitutes one of the essential foundations of a democratic society and is one of the basic conditions for its progress and the development of man.”He ruled, “I am therefore convinced that the interdict sought by the applicant is not supported by the law. It is contrary to it.
Its effect will be far reaching in curtailing the fundamental rights of the citizens to express themselves and freely monitor the activities of local authorities to the detriment of good governance and service delivery.“On the basis of the above considerations, the application cannot succeed for lack of merit.”The court dismissed all preliminary objections raised by both parties and made no order as to costs.
Justice Siziba ruled that, as a public body, Rusape Town Council had no legal standing to seek protection from reputational harm through a defamation interdict.
“A local authority like the applicant cannot be allowed to muzzle public criticism under the guise that its reputation is at stake,” the judge wrote, citing both Zimbabwean and international case law emphasising the need for transparency and democratic accountability.The judge further noted that although some of Mwashaenyi’s claims were “inaccurate and misinformed,” including allegations about the non-existence of the developer and claims of improper payments, this did not justify limiting his freedom of expression.“Being a public body and a State organ, a local authority… is there to serve the public and it cannot therefore be allowed to sue for defamation to protect its own public image or pecuniary interests,” the judgment read.“There can be no doubt that the freedom of expression, coupled with the corollary right to receive and impart information, is a core value of any democratic society deserving of the utmost legal protection.“As such, it is prominently recognised and entrenched in virtually every international and regional human rights instrument,” Siziba noted.He added, “This court too has had occasion to recognise the freedom of expression as a core value of a free and democratic society.“The importance of the right to freedom of expression has often been stressed by our courts. Suppression of available information and of ideas can only be detrimental to the decision-making process of individuals, corporations and governments.“It may lead to the wrong government being elected, the wrong policies being adopted, the wrong people being appointed, corruption, dishonesty and incompetence not being exposed, wrong investments being made and a multitude of other undesirable consequences.“It is for this reason that it has been said that freedom of expression constitutes one of the essential foundations of a democratic society and is one of the basic conditions for its progress and the development of man.”He ruled, “I am therefore convinced that the interdict sought by the applicant is not supported by the law. It is contrary to it.
Its effect will be far reaching in curtailing the fundamental rights of the citizens to express themselves and freely monitor the activities of local authorities to the detriment of good governance and service delivery.“On the basis of the above considerations, the application cannot succeed for lack of merit.”The court dismissed all preliminary objections raised by both parties and made no order as to costs.
Source: Newzimbabwe
