Lawyer Alexious Kamangila is today challenging a court decision that handed Justice Ken Manda victory in a defamation case, arguing that he was condemned without being given a chance to defend himself.
Kamangila wants the court to reverse an order that struck out his defence and entered judgment on liability against him, saying the decision was made without his knowledge or an opportunity to respond.
In an application before the court, Kamangila argues that Manda never properly served him with the documents and court directions requiring him to prepare for trial.
He says the claimant relied on an email address that he had not designated for court service and which was inaccessible to him.
The dispute stems from a scheduling conference held on March 5, 2026, when the court directed Manda to formalise the proceedings’ directions into a court order and serve it on Kamangila. Manda was also required to serve his witness statements and skeleton arguments within 21 days.
However, Kamangila argues that Manda failed to fulfil these obligations but later returned to court seeking to have his defence struck out for allegedly failing to file a trial bundle within the prescribed period.
He maintains that he could not have been expected to comply with the trial requirements before receiving proper service of the relevant documents. He also faults the court for making the May 25, 2026 order ex parte, without notifying him of Manda’s application or allowing him to answer the allegations.
Kamangila further argues that entering judgment on liability without a full trial in a defamation case was improper.
He cites Order 12 rule 23(2) of the court rules, which excludes summary judgment in libel and slander claims, alongside his constitutional rights to freedom of expression and access to justice.
His defence, he says, raises substantive issues of truth, fair comment, public interest and constitutional freedom of expression that deserve a full hearing.
He is therefore asking the court to set aside the order striking out his defence, reverse the judgment on liability and restore his defence so that the case can be determined on its merits.
