Al Jazeera Media Network v Mehluleli Dube

Al Jazeera Media Network (appellant), a private foundation established under the laws of Qatar, operates a news television station broadcasting worldwide via satellite. Between 23 March 2023 and 14 April 2023, it aired a documentary series titled "The Gold Mafia" which included allegations against Mehluleli Dube (respondent), the former Head of Gold Operations at Fidelity Printers and Refiners Zimbabwe. The documentary alleged that Dube was involved in gold smuggling and corruption, specifically that he received bribes of US$3,000 per month from a person named Kamlesh Pattni and signed off licenses corruptly. The episode received 2.8 million views. Dube sent emails demanding proof and later demanding US$2 million in damages for defamation. When Al Jazeera did not respond substantively, Dube filed a chamber application in the High Court seeking attachment of Al Jazeera's property to found or confirm jurisdiction under section 15 of the High Court Act. Dube claimed Al Jazeera had a bureau office at Room 102, Rainbow Towers Hotel, Harare, containing laptops, computers, printers, cameras and photographic equipment valued at no less than US$100,000. Al Jazeera opposed, denying it had a bureau office and stating that Room 102 was merely an editorial room leased from Rainbow Tourism Group Ltd, with no equipment kept there. Al Jazeera admitted having two employees resident in Zimbabwe who possessed mobile equipment as tools of trade used for regional and international assignments.

• Whether the appellant had a bureau office in Zimbabwe
• Whether the appellant had property firmly established within the jurisdiction of the High Court capable of attachment to found or confirm jurisdiction
• Whether the respondent adequately identified attachable property belonging to the appellant at the time of launching the application
• Whether the requirements for attachment ad confirmandam jurisdictionem were satisfied

The appeal was allowed with costs. The judgment of the High Court dated 11 October 2024 was set aside and substituted with an order dismissing the respondent's application with costs.

For an attachment ad confirmandam jurisdictionem to succeed, three requirements must be satisfied: (1) a prima facie cause of action against the defendant; (2) the defendant is a peregrinus; and (3) the defendant has property within the jurisdiction capable of attachment. Property must be "firmly located or established" within the jurisdiction at the time the application is launched - transient property that moves in and out of the jurisdiction cannot satisfy this requirement. The crucial moment for determining whether property exists within the jurisdiction is when the application is launched. Mobile tools of trade belonging to a peregrinus that are carried by employees traveling in and out of the country are not sufficiently firmly established to ground jurisdiction. A peregrinus does not establish permanent presence merely by leasing an editorial room or having employees ordinarily resident in the jurisdiction if no property is kept at fixed locations within the jurisdiction.

The Court noted that while South African and Zimbabwean law on attachment to found jurisdiction are very similar, Zimbabwe's section 15 of the High Court Act grants the court discretion whether to order actual arrest or attachment, altering the common law position that required actual arrest or attachment. The Court observed that the appellant could not have been "subletting" Room 102 as alleged in its papers, since "sublet" means to lease out to another, and the appellant was actually leasing (not subletting) from Rainbow Tourism Group Ltd. The Court commented that editorial offices and bureau offices serve completely different functions - a bureau office is typically an outlying branch devoted to news gathering in a specific location, whereas an editorial office is where news is edited and produced for publication. The Court noted that the High Court's failure to explain how it concluded Room 102 was a bureau office despite categorical denial by the appellant created an impression that the decision was "grossly unreasonable and capricious".

This case clarifies the requirements for attachment of property to found or confirm jurisdiction against a peregrinus defendant in Zimbabwe. It establishes that: (1) a clear distinction exists between a bureau office (which would establish permanent presence) and an editorial office; (2) property sought to be attached must be "firmly located or established" within the jurisdiction, not merely transient; (3) mobile tools of trade that move in and out of the country with employees cannot be considered firmly established; (4) the crucial moment for determining whether attachable property exists is when the application is launched; (5) an applicant must adequately identify the property to be attached, particularly when the defendant denies having such property in the jurisdiction. The case reinforces that courts will not grant attachment orders where the effectiveness of such orders cannot be assured due to the transient nature of the property. It provides important guidance on jurisdictional issues in defamation claims against international media organizations operating in Zimbabwe without a permanent physical presence.