High Court to Mediate K250 Million Compensation Case Between Judge Manda and Lawyer Kamangila

By Burnett Munthali

In a significant legal development, the High Court in Lilongwe has scheduled a mediation session for February 12, 2025, in the case where Judge Kenan Manda is seeking K250 million in compensation from outspoken lawyer Alexious Kamangila. The case arises from Facebook posts in which Kamangila allegedly accused Judge Manda of fraudulent conduct. The upcoming mediation will be conducted at 11:30 am in the chambers of Judge Semion Mdeza, as part of an effort to resolve the dispute before it escalates to a full trial.

The dispute centers on Facebook posts made by Kamangila, a prominent lawyer known for his outspoken views on various legal and political matters. In these posts, Kamangila accused Judge Manda of engaging in fraudulent conduct, an allegation that the judge vehemently denies. In response to these accusations, Judge Manda has sought K250 million in compensation, claiming that the defamatory statements damaged his reputation and integrity.

This case highlights the growing tension between social media and the legal profession, particularly when it comes to the limits of free speech and the potential harm that public allegations can cause to individuals in positions of power. As social media becomes an increasingly influential platform for public discourse, the legal system faces growing challenges in balancing freedom of expression with the protection of reputations.

The High Court’s decision to schedule a mediation session reflects the judiciary’s preference for resolving disputes amicably before they escalate to full trials. In civil cases such as this one, mediation is the initial step where both parties are given the opportunity to present their sides of the case in front of a judge. The goal is to explore possible compromises and determine whether the issue can be settled without the need for a prolonged trial.

Mediation is often seen as a more cost-effective and timely way to resolve disputes, as it allows for greater flexibility in reaching a settlement. In this case, Judge Mdeza, the presiding mediator, will assess whether there is room for both parties to reach an agreement. If the mediation proves successful, the matter could be resolved without the need for a full trial, which would save both time and resources.

However, if the mediation fails to result in a settlement, the case will proceed to trial. Should that happen, the case will be heard by a different judge, as is the standard procedure in cases where mediation does not resolve the issue.

In addition to the K250 million compensation claim, the case has already seen significant legal action. In October of the previous year, the High Court issued an interlocutory injunction against Kamangila, prohibiting him from making, writing, or publishing any further statements about Judge Manda until further notice. This injunction was granted to prevent further harm to the judge’s reputation while the case is being resolved.

The issuance of the injunction highlights the seriousness with which the judiciary is treating the allegations. It also underscores the court’s commitment to safeguarding the integrity of its members, especially when accusations of fraudulent conduct are made against them.

While the injunction does not resolve the underlying defamation case, it serves as a temporary measure to limit the damage being done to Judge Manda’s reputation. Kamangila’s legal team will likely address the injunction during the upcoming mediation, as it remains an important aspect of the overall case.

The case between Judge Manda and Kamangila has broader implications for the balance between free speech and legal accountability in Malawi. The rise of social media as a platform for public discourse has brought with it both positive and negative consequences. On one hand, social media enables individuals to express their opinions and engage in debates about matters of public interest. On the other hand, it can also facilitate the spread of unverified or defamatory information, which can have serious consequences for the reputations and careers of those affected.

For legal professionals and public figures like Judge Manda, the stakes are particularly high. Accusations of fraud or misconduct can undermine public trust in the judiciary and the legal system as a whole. The case serves as a reminder of the power that public statements, particularly those made on social media, can have on individuals’ lives.

At the same time, the case also raises questions about the extent to which individuals should be held accountable for their online statements. While Kamangila has the right to express his views, he must also bear responsibility for the potential consequences of those views, especially when they involve serious allegations against a public official.

As the case moves forward, all eyes will be on the February 2025 mediation session. The outcome of this mediation could set an important precedent for similar cases in Malawi, especially as the country continues to grapple with the complex intersection of social media, free speech, and legal accountability.

For Judge Manda, the primary concern is likely the protection of his professional reputation and the compensation for any harm caused by the defamatory statements. For Kamangila, the case offers an opportunity to defend his right to speak freely, while also addressing the serious allegations against him.

Regardless of the outcome, the case serves as a crucial reminder of the responsibility that comes with public expression, particularly when it involves serious accusations that can damage a person’s career and reputation. It also highlights the role of the judiciary in maintaining the delicate balance between upholding free speech and protecting individuals from defamation.

Should mediation fail, the trial will undoubtedly bring greater scrutiny to the case, offering an opportunity for both sides to present their evidence and arguments in full. For now, the legal community and the public will be closely watching the developments as the case progresses, with significant implications for the future of free speech and legal accountability in Malawi.

Related Posts

Leave a Reply Cancel reply