Mahere vs Kudzai Brawl Rages On Ad The Later Appeals USD100k Ruling

The years long duel between Journalist Edmund Kudzai and Top Lawyer and Politician Advocate Fadzai Mahere continues unabated.

Mahere sued Kudzai for defamation and won a record USD100 000 award after a default judgement by a High Court Judge.

Kudzai has however appealed the ruling, alleging brazen judicial misconduct by the Judge, Justice Mambara.

Kudzayi is moving to rescind a record-setting US$100,000 defamation award granted against him by Justice Mambara on 10 July 2025, accusing prominent lawyer Fadzayi Mahere of committing perjury and systematic abuse of process to obtain the default judgement.

In an explosive 106-page application filed with the High Court this week, Kudzayi alleges Mahere secured the staggering award by falsely reviving a case that had already been struck off the roll twice. He contends she misrepresented to the court that the case had been ‘ripe for set down’ for a pre-trial conference, yet no application had ever been filed and the essential legal paperwork does not exist. His repeated demands for this documentation, he claims, were met with calculated silence and veiled threats of punitive costs.

The fraud, he argues, was a ‘brazen audacity’ which vitiates the entire process.

The journalist maintains he was not in wilful default. On the day his defence was struck off in his absence, Kudzayi states he was present at the High Court but was physically barred by security from proceeding to the hearing. This, he argues, allowed Mahere to ‘snatch at a judgement’ without making the formal application demanded by the High Court rules.

Kudzayi’s application also confirms the substance of his original 2022 reporting, which alleged an affair between Mahere and a married businessman, Tinashe Murapata. He makes the bombshell claim that he holds WhatsApp and other messages from the businessman’s ex-wife confirming the affair and has two witnesses ready to testify. This evidence, he asserts, proves his reporting was both truthful and in the public interest.

The application launches a particularly sharp attack on Mahere’s claim that the story ‘dented’ her marital prospects. Kudzayi writes, ‘The notion that a woman who has remained unmarried at the advanced age of 39 years old has had her prospects of marriage “dented” by a story that is true and that, moreover, was published when she was at the equally advanced age of 37 and still unmarried is utterly preposterous and cannot be accepted on its face.’ Such claims, he argues, demand cross-examination, a due process necessity that the default proceedings denied him.

Kudzayi also asserts that Justice Mambara made an error of law in granting the ‘manifestly unjust’ US$100,000 sum, the largest ever defamation payout in Zimbabwean history. The quantum of damages, he contends, was never tested in court and offends all principles of proportionality, eclipsing awards previously granted to senior government ministers who held far higher profiles than Mahere.

Perhaps most remarkably, the filing reveals that with a prior US$18,000 award, Mahere has now secured a total of $118,000 in defamation damages. Kudzayi asserts this figure represents more damages than have ever been awarded in the history of defamation claims in this jurisdiction combined.

Framing his reporting as a legitimate inquiry into the conduct of a high-profile public figure who seeks national leadership and who is also an officer of the court bound to follow rules that guarantee procedural fairness, Kudzayi asks the court to set aside the judgement and allow the case to be heard on its merits.

The application sets the stage for what could become one of Zimbabwe’s most consequential legal battles. A legal commentator approached by this publication said: ‘It is an aspect of due process that the High Court Rules allow litigants to challenge default judgements by applying for rescission. This application, however, goes beyond questions of the grounds on which the High Court may exercise this power. If Kudzayi’s application succeeds, it will have implications that extend well beyond a single judgement, potentially exposing systematic vulnerabilities in how Zimbabwean courts handle high-profile litigation.’

Kudzayi is represented by Gunje Legal Practitioners, instructing Advocate Tinomudaishe Chinyoka.

Mahere, who is represented by Mhishi Nkomo Legal Practice, has yet to respond to the application.