Author and lawyer Petina Gappah is more likely to face civil imprisonment for failing to pay the US$18,000 damages awarded to Fadzayi Mahere, former Mt Pleasant Member of Parliament, for defamatory remarks made on Twitter in 2018.

High Court choose Justice Joseph Mafusire lately ordered Gappah to pay the damages, plus 5% curiosity every year and Mahere’s authorized prices. But Gappah has didn’t pay the damages.

Consequently, Mahere’s authorized group has connected Gappah’s properties, together with a BMW valued at US$5,000, a Capri Deep Freezer (US$200), Defy Microwave (US$100), and Glass show (US$100), however the whole worth falls wanting the US$18,000 damages.

This improvement might result in Mahere in search of Gappah’s civil imprisonment.

The defamation case stems from a Twitter spat in 2018, the place Gappah made allegations about Mahere’s college admissions and private life. Mahere denied the allegations and sued Gappah for US$1 million, citing hurt to her profession.

Gappah apologised and supplied a donation to a charity of Mahere’s selection, however Mahere’s authorized group deemed the apology insincere.

Justice Mafusire decreased the damages declare from US$1 million to US$50,000 and subsequently ordered Gappah to pay US$18,000 in damages. The choose acknowledged that the defamatory statements had been “vile and persistent,” justifying the substantial damages awarded to Mahere.

“I decide that the plaintiff is entitled to her prices however not on the upper scale. My motive for that is that while the defamatory statements by the defendant had been vile and chronic, the stiff award of damages above has been in recognition of that issue, amongst others.

“Furthermore, the defendant lost all the interlocutory applications with costs being awarded against her there and then. None were held over for determination later as is sometimes done,” Justice Mafusire dominated.

“In the recusal utility, the prices had been awarded on the upper scale. There is not any motive to mulct the defendant any additional.

“Lastly, the plaintiff’s summons was not issued in October 2020, however in October 2018 when the financial regime in place was completely different from the one-to-one ratio referred to by her. So it can’t have been the explanation for the initially inflated declare.

“However, while the plus petitio precept is related, it has had little sway on this matter as a result of I’ve thought of that there are actually no particular circumstance to warrant a departure from the overall rule about prices. In the outcome, the next order is hereby made,

“The defendant shall pay the plaintiff the sum of US$18000 [eighteen thousand United States {dollars}), or the equal thereof in native forex on the charge of alternate prevailing on the time of fee.

“The defendant shall pay curiosity on the above quantity on the prescribed charge, specifically 5% every year from the date of judgment to the date of fee.

“The defendant shall pay the plaintiff’s prices of go well with.