FDD leader Edith Nawakwi has argued that UPND president Hakainde Hichilema has made reference to several media platforms indicating that she defamed him but he has not produced particulars of defamatory words.
Nawakwi wants the Lusaka High Court to compel Hichilema to give her better particulars because, according to her, his statement of claim is deficient.
This is in a matter where Hichilema has sued Nawakwi for defamation of character demanding US $3 million as damages for libel.
Nawakwi on several media platforms alleged that Hichilema illegally benefited from the privatisation exercise by dubiously acquiring a house belonging to Lima Bank.
Hichilema wants Nawakwi to reward him $3 million which he has spent in mitigating the effects of her conduct towards him which emanate from the publication of her defamatory utterances.
He also wants an injunction restraining Nawakwi, whether by herself, servants or agents, or otherwise from further publishing or causing to be published or broadcast the defamatory words or similar.
Nawakwi had earlier asked for better particulars from Hichilema in order for her to defend herself, claiming Hichilema’s defamation case lacked sufficient particulars to warrant her to file defence.
But Hichilema, in an affidavit in opposition to summons for further and better particulars sworn by his lawyer Mulambo Haimbe, said Nawakwi was not entitled to the further and better particulars requested for as the demand letter was concise and segmented under clear headings which detailed each of the distinct heads of claim.
However, Nawakwi in her skeleton arguments in reply, said she had never been personally served with a copy of the demand letter.
She insisted that Hichilema had not adduced any evidence that she acknowledged receiving the demand letter.
Nawakwi said apart from making reference to various public media platforms such as Hot FM Radio, ZNBC there was no evidence of an interview with Diamond TV and that the interview with Zambia Daily Mail newspaper did not show receipt of the letter of demand.
“The defendant reiterates that the plaintiff’s claim endorsed on the writ of summons and the particulars in the statement of claim are deficient, and this is a fit and proper case for this court to order further and better particulars. The plaintiff avers third party publications, Internet streaming and digital broadcast. The plaintiff is legally obliged to plead the publishes [published statements],” she submitted.
Nawakwi said Hichilema referred to an interview on Hot FM and alleged that she had continued to make defamatory statements against him on ZNBC and other media outlets but did not produce any particulars at all.
She stated that the demand letter must be filled in its own right, and the acknowledgement of receipt or affidavit of service were subsequent requirements after the plaintiff had effected proper service of the demand letter on her.
Nawakwi further indicated that a demand letter was an integral part of the original process and a very cardinal document in Hichilema’s bundle of pleadings.
“The proper service of the letter of demand is a requisite condition prior to the filing of the letter of demand. Mere knowledge of the existence and contents of a letter of demand are not sufficient,” submitted Nawakwi. “The global pleading of alleged defamatory words render the particulars of the statement of claim deficient. The plaintiff is obliged at law when one avails that the defamation was by way of Internet or digital broadcasting without furnishing the particulars of the publishes.”