Online Reporter
Fidelis Munyoro
Chief Court Reporter
THE High Court has upheld an exception raised by NetOne Cellular (Private) Limited, ruling that the summons and particulars of claim filed by former chief executive Lazarus Muchenje were grossly defective.
Presiding Judge Regis Dembure struck out the claim, stating that “the exception is upheld with costs”.
However, the judge declined to dismiss the claim outright, noting that the plaintiff had not sought leave to amend the pleadings.
The court found that Muchenje’s pleadings failed to comply with procedural and substantive requirements under the High Court Rules of 2021. Justice Dembure noted that Muchenje did not file a replication or heads of argument within the mandatory 10-day period after receiving the exception, as required by Rule 42(9).
“The plaintiff’s heads of argument, having been improperly filed, are invalid. They are accordingly struck out,” the judge ruled.
The absence of a replication, the court said, meant there was no valid opposition to the exception.
The court outlined specific deficiencies in Muchenje’s claims, beginning with his demand for damages of US$30 000.
Justice Dembure observed, “The damages claimed of US$30 000 were not particularised as the plaintiff does not tell the court and the defendant how much he is claiming under the various heads stated, such as for reputation, contumelia and emotional trauma.”
The claim lacked detail regarding the nature of the alleged personal injury, harm to reputation, or emotional suffering. Muchenje’s demand for US$500 000 in legal fees was also found to be unsubstantiated.
The court noted that Muchenje did not specify the nature of the legal fees, related attendances, or applicable tariffs to justify the amount claimed. Similarly, his demand for US$470 000 for loss of earnings failed to provide necessary details, the court further ruled.
“The summons merely asserts a loss of income without motivating the claim. There are no details concerning the plaintiff’s employment status when the alleged cause of action arose, what he was earning, or a demonstration of how the sum claimed was derived,” remarked the judge.
On the claim of malicious prosecution, the court ruled that Muchenje had not pleaded the essential elements, including the absence of reasonable cause, malice, or animus iniuriandi. Citing the precedent, the court found that the declaration did not meet the legal threshold for a valid cause of action.
Justice Dembure emphasised the importance of clarity and specificity in pleadings.
“The pleadings should make clear the general nature of the case. They are meant to mark out the parameters of the case sought to be advanced and define the issues between the litigants.”
The court further highlighted that the exception procedure is intended to address defects in pleadings early, ensuring only actionable disputes proceed to trial.
The court ruled that Muchenje’s summons was so fundamentally flawed that it could not be cured through evidence or amendment.
Justice Dembure struck out the summons and declaration in their entirety and reiterated the need for legal practitioners to draft pleadings with precision.
“Adherence to procedural rules is paramount,” warned the judge.
The exception was upheld with costs awarded to NetOne.
