Judge claims US$3m from litigant

interest at the prescribed rate.
The lawsuit arose after Mr Vengai deposed an affidavit insinuating unprofessional conduct on the part of the judge in a case in which he was suing Reserve Bank of Zimbabwe Governor Dr Gideon Gono.
Justice Bere presided over the case, which Mr Vengai eventually lost.
In the affidavit, Mr Vengai said Justice Bere and Dr Gono were relatives.
“The . . . judge who heard my case, Justice Bere, and the owner of first respondent, who is Governor Gono, originate from adjacent rural villages at Chigavakava Shopping Centre in the district of Buhera,” said Mr Vengai in his affidavit dated October 7 2009.
“The . . . judge is an uncle of the governor and the two have known each other since childhood.”
Mr Vengai repeated the same in a letter he wrote to the then Judge President Rita Makarau the following day seeking permission to apply for a rescision of judgment citing anomalies from the hearing.
The judge felt Mr Vengai’s affidavit and letter were blatantly false, injurious and defamatory of the plaintiff.
“They were written evidently with intention to suggest or imply or insinuate dishonourable and unprofessional conduct on the part of the plaintiff in his capacity as an honourable judge . . .” said Justice Bere in his summons.
Through his lawyer, Mr Joseph Mafusire of Scanlen and Holderness law firm, Justice Bere said he demanded a retraction from the litigant in July last year.
“However, the purported retraction by the defendant was manifestly cynical and satirical and he actually went on to extensively repeat the defamatory statements which he had made previously,” said the judge.
Later on, in bizarre twist of events, Justice Bere was driving to Bulawayo on July 25 last year when he gave a lift to four passengers, one of whom turned out to be the defendant whom he did not know and who also did not know the judge.
Along the way, Justice Bere said the passengers struck a conversation by themselves, which later drifted to the subject of alleged corruption in the country.
“The defendant spoke out passionately about alleged corruption at the High Court and zealously mentioned the plaintiff’s name as the chief culprit,” said Justice Bere.
“The defendant’s conduct aforesaid was wrongful, highly defamatory and extremely injurious of the plaintiff’s feelings, character, integrity and reputation.”
To enable him to plead, Mr Vengai is requesting Justice Bere to furnish him with further information he seeks to use in defending the claim.
But the judge feels that Mr Vengai’s request for further particulars was improper in terms of the rules of the High Court.
“The application (for further particulars) is manifestly designed to scuttle progress of the main action. The application reduces this . . . court to a forum of trading insults.”
The matter is yet to be set for hearing.