High Court orders “Fimba Upoke” to pay damages to Findlay for defamation

High Court orders “Fimba Upoke” to pay damages to Findlay for defamation

The Lusaka High Court has ordered social-media personality Frank Zimba, the creator of the Facebook page “Fimba Upoke Dig,” to pay businessman Harry Findlay damages for defamation after accusing him of drug trafficking and political manipulation linked to former president Edgar Chagwa Lungu.

In a default judgment delivered by Justice Gaudentia Salasini, the court ruled in Findlay’s favour after Zimba failed to enter appearance or file a defence. The order compels Zimba to issue a public apology, delete all defamatory material from his platforms, and formally declare the statements false. Justice Salasini also granted an injunction restraining Zimba or any of his agents from publishing similar allegations in future.

The court further entered interlocutory judgment for libel and slander, with damages, interest and costs to be assessed later. This means that while the exact financial figure will be determined by the court’s deputy registrar at a later date, liability has already been confirmed.

The case stems from a 28 July 2025 video titled “We are dealing with Mafias and a syndicate that want to paint HH black,” in which Zimba alleged that Findlay and the late President Lungu operated an international drug-trafficking network and were part of a conspiracy to destabilise the 2026 general elections. Zimba further claimed that Findlay used diplomatic channels and the presidential jet to move narcotics abroad and that the Lungu family’s burial decisions were intended to conceal the true circumstances of the former head of state’s death.

Findlay told the court that the statements were false, malicious, and defamatory, arguing that they exposed him to public ridicule and caused severe damage to his business reputation. He said the video circulated widely online and had led some associates to question his integrity. According to his affidavit, repeated demands for a retraction or apology went unanswered, leaving him no choice but to seek redress through the courts.

Because Zimba did not respond to the claim, the court entered judgment in default—an automatic ruling when a defendant ignores or fails to contest a validly served lawsuit. In practice, such a ruling carries the same legal weight as a full trial verdict. The matter now proceeds to assessment of damages, where the court will fix the amount payable, including interest and legal costs.

Legal observers say the judgment is another signal from the judiciary that defamation on social media has tangible legal consequences. Under Zambian law, defamation that injures a person’s reputation can attract not only damages but also injunctions and enforcement through property seizure or garnishee orders. Once the High Court finalises the assessment, Zimba will be legally obliged to pay, and if he fails to do so voluntarily, Findlay may pursue enforcement through the Sheriff’s office potentially involving the seizure of bank accounts or attachable assets.

The decision also reignites national debate on responsible digital speech and the limits of online activism. Zambia’s Constitution guarantees freedom of expression, but courts have consistently held that such freedom does not extend to falsehoods that injure reputations or threaten public order. The Fimba Upoke ruling illustrates how unverified political commentary, when defamatory, can result in serious financial and legal exposure.

For Findlay, the outcome restores what he described as “hard-earned dignity” after months of public speculation. He said through his lawyers that the judgment vindicates his name and demonstrates that the courts remain a refuge for those wronged by online smear campaigns.

For Zimba, the ruling marks the start of a costly reckoning. Unless overturned on appeal, the judgment is binding and enforceable, and the order to apologise and retract remains in force. Legal experts emphasise that default judgments are rarely set aside unless the defendant shows exceptional reasons, such as improper service or procedural error.

In effect, the High Court’s decision concludes that Zimba’s allegations were false and defamatory, while setting the stage for a financial penalty once the registrar completes the assessment phase. To ordinary readers, this means the court has already found Zimba liable; what remains is simply to determine how much he must pay. Should he fail to meet that obligation, enforcement measures including seizure of property or bank-account garnishment can follow.

The ruling sends a clear message that freedom of expression in Zambia must walk hand-in-hand with responsibility and respect for truth.