HARARE – The High Court has dismissed an application by lawyer Edwin Isaac Manikai for leave to appeal against an earlier ruling that struck his urgent chamber application against activist Jealousy Mbizvo Mawarire off the roll for lack of urgency.

Manikai had sought an interim interdict in April compelling Mawarire to remove two articles published on his X page on March 31 and April 2, which he argued were defamatory. The articles detailed the collapse of a Constitutional Court challenge against Constitution of Zimbabwe Amendment Bill No. 3, alleging that Professor Jonathan Moyo was the real architect of the litigation and that a person referred to only as “Manikai” had personally delivered a cash payment to Moyo on behalf of Kudakwashe Tagwirei, the alleged financier.

Justice Esther Muremba struck the original application off the urgent roll on April 9, finding that the article did not identify the applicant personally, and since “Manikai” is not unique to the applicant, there was no basis for inferring that the reference was to him.

The judge also ruled that the interim relief sought was defective because it was tied to a damages summons to be filed within 30 days rather than to a final order following a future hearing.

Manikai then sought leave to appeal to the Supreme Court on three grounds: that a hearing was required before a matter could be struck off the urgent roll; that the court had effectively found he was not defamed without hearing the merits; and that the judge erred in not finding the interim interdict would have lapsed automatically.

His counsel, Thembinkosi Magwaliba, argued the threshold for leave was low, citing case law that “it does not require much to obtain leave” to appeal to the Supreme Court.

Justice Muremba rejected all three grounds. On the naming issue, she noted the founding papers themselves had acknowledged that some 35 relatives share the Manikai surname, and reasoned that without further identifiers there was no basis for urgent relief.

She insisted her original order made no finding on whether defamation had occurred, only that the application lacked urgency: “There is nowhere in the order where I stated that the applicant was not defamed… My remarks were confined to the issue of urgency and not to the substantive merits of defamation.”

On the hearing point, she held that Rule 60(18) of the High Court Rules does not require an oral hearing before a matter is struck off for lack of urgency where the judge reaches that view on the papers alone.

She also dismissed Mawarire’s preliminary objections – including an argument that no appeal lies at all against a striking-off for lack of urgency – finding that right of appeal exists under section 43(2)(d) of the High Court Act, distinct from the purely administrative effect of Rule 60(19), which automatically transfers such matters to the ordinary roll.

Despite dismissing the application, the judge declined to award costs against Manikai, criticising Mawarire’s lawyer, Lyoba Chiperesa, for pursuing “points in limine that were wholly irrelevant to the present application” and failing to substantively engage with the actual grounds of appeal.

The effect of the ruling is that Manikai’s underlying defamation claim against Mawarire now proceeds on the ordinary court roll, where it can be argued on its merits.