AL Jazeera Media Network has successfully appealed a High Court ruling ordering the attachment of its property in Zimbabwe over a legal dispute arising from the Gold Mafia documentary released in March 2023.
Mehluleli Dube, Fidelity Printers and Refiners head of gold operations between 1989 and 2022, had approached the High Court suing the media network for defamation.
The High Court had directed the Sheriff to seize Al Jazeera property including laptops, computers, printers, cameras and photographic equipment at its bureau office in Harare.
However, Al Jazeera appealed against the High Court judgment issued on October 11 2024 granting Dube’s application for attachment of property to found or confirm the jurisdiction of the court in an intended suit for defamation against the media network.
The Supreme Court bench comprising Justices Antonia Guvava, Lavender Makoni and Joseph Musakwa, however, found that the High Court erred in finding that Al Jazeera had a bureau office in Zimbabwe.
The judges dismissed a ruling that Al Jazeera possessed property within the jurisdiction of the court, which was capable of attachment to found or confirm jurisdiction.
Al Jazeera is a private foundation established for the public benefit under the laws of Qatar and it has legal capacity in that it can sue and be sued in its own name.
Its principal place of business is at Corner Khalifa Street and Ahmed Bin Ali Street, Wadi Al Sail, Doha, Qatar.
- Hero status conferment needs revision
- Gold Mafia: Mnangagwa’s ‘cornered’ allies speak
- TIZ calls on govt to act on Aljazeera expose
- Al Jazeera must be onto something big
Keep Reading
It operates a news and public affairs television station under the name Al Jazeera from Doha, Qatar and the television station airs, through a satellite television service, all over the world and is done through a company called MultiChoice under its platform commonly known as DStv.
On September 20, 2023, Dube approached the courts with a chamber application for an order of attachment and confirmation of jurisdiction in terms of section 15 of the High Court Act.
Dube intended to issue out summons against Al Jazeera following a well-orchestrated publicity blitz the broadcaster aired between March 23 2023 and April 14 2023 — a television documentary video series titled The Gold Mafia, which was aired on DStv Channel 406 and through YouTube.
The documentary had three episodes and in the second episode titled Smoke and Mirrors at timestamp 13:10-13:42, Al Jazeera implicated Dube, through an informant, as one of the major players in gold deals alleged to have occurred in Zimbabwe.
It was alleged that Dube was involved in the smuggling of gold out of the country and it was further alleged that, as head of gold operations at Fidelity Printers and Refiners, he was corruptly executing his duties by signing off licences for the sale and purchase of gold by one Kamlesh Pattni.
Dube, for his pains, was alleged to have received a bribe of US$3 000 per month.
He submitted that the views for the broadcast of the particular episode climaxed to a record 2,8 million on both platforms, saying he was obviously aggrieved by the allegations of corruption made against him.
Dube sought to claim damages for what he believed to be defamatory statements made in the documentary.
He engaged Al Jazeera and demanded proof that the allegations against him were true in an email dated May 15, 2023, but Al Jazeera did not respond.
Dube sent a second email on May 24, 2023, with a letter of demand attached, for US$2 million damages for defamation and injuria.
In response, Al Jazeera informed Dube that it had not received the earlier email, promising to give due consideration to it and provide a detailed response.
The court heard that Al Jazeera went quiet, prompting Dube to advise the network that he was waiting for a substantive response.
Al Jazeera did not respond, resulting in Dube filing the chamber application seeking attachment of the broadcaster’s property to found jurisdiction.
Dube argued that the net effect of airing the series had caused irreparable harm to his image and reputation among his peers, family and the nation at large.
He submitted that this was due to Al Jazeera’s extensive television coverage at home and abroad.
Dube also argued that the continued accessibility of the episode on the appellant’s website continues to damage his reputation as people can still view it long after the series have stopped showing on DStv.
He said the loss of his reputation and standing in society warranted a claim in damages in the sum of US$2 million, adding that Al Jazeera had a bureau office at a hotel in Harare where it held tools of trade which could be attached.
He averred that two Al Jazeera employees held in their possession state-of-the-art laptops, cameras and photographic equipment which belong to the network, with an estimated value of not less than US$100 000.
In its opposing affidavit, deposed by its director of investigative journalism Phillip Rees, Al Jazeera denied having a bureau office in Harare, but confirmed leasing a room used as an editorial room by its employees and denied that equipment there belonged to it.
Rees said Al Jazeera was neither incorporated nor did it have a principal place of business in Zimbabwe and, as such, it was not subject to the court’s jurisdiction over the defamation claim.
Al Jazeera vehemently denied that the publication of the documentary was defamatory of Dube as the references to him were true and for the public benefit.
It submitted that Fidelity Printers and Refiners and its employees performed a public function and their actions are, therefore, in the public interest.
Rees argued that Al Jazeera had a duty to publish the information that it uncovered as corruption in public institutions in the public interest.
It maintained that the publication was true, and statements made were made after reasonable steps had been taken to verify their correctness.
The High Court, however, ruled in favour of Dube saying the property to be attached should be ascertainable and should be within the jurisdiction of the court.
Aggrieved by the High Court decision, Al Jazeera approached the Supreme Court, arguing that the court a quo erred in concluding that it had confirmed that it operated a bureau office in Zimbabwe.
It also challenged the decision that its property is firmly established in Zimbabwe, in view of the unchallenged evidence that it only introduced its equipment into the country intermittently when its employees, who travel locally and internationally, use the editorial room at the hotel.
The Supreme Court judges, however, determined that the High Court judgment did not explain the basis for most of its findings.
“It is not clear how the admitted editorial office morphed to become a bureau office. An editorial office and a bureau office are not the same,” part of the judgment read.
“There is no evidence on the record that the appellant uses the room for collecting or distributing news or information. The appellant’s position was that the room was being used purely as an editorial office.
“Without an explanation in its judgment on how the court came to this finding which was clearly contrary to the evidence, the impression that the court a quo’s decision is grossly unreasonable and capricious is unavoidable.
“The fact that the property belonging to the appellant was not identified by the respondent in his founding affidavit introduces yet another fault in the court a quo’s findings.”
The Supreme Court ruled that there is no evidence on the record that Al Jazeera has property that is firmly established in Zimbabwe.
