High Court orders retrial in Baba Levo-Wakazi defamation case

Dar es Salaam. Kigoma Urban Member of Parliament (CCM) Clayton Chipando, popularly known as Baba Levo, will be forced to return to court following the High Court’s decision to set aside a Sh100 million award he won in a defamation suit against Webiro Wasira.

In a judgment delivered on Friday, August 28, 2026, and published on the Judiciary website on Monday, August 31, Justice Cleophas Morris ordered a retrial before another resident magistrate at the Kisutu Resident Magistrate’s Court.

The decision follows the High Court's determination that Mr Wasira, popularly known as Wakazi, who resides in Dar es Salaam and Houston, USA, was not properly served with summons in Civil Case No. 1696 of 2025.

Justice Morris rendered the decision when delivering judgment in Appeal No. 11968 of 2026, filed by Mr Wakazi through advocate Peter Kibatala, challenging the ex-parte proceedings on grounds that he was unaware of the case.

Mr Wasira had initially applied to the Kisutu Resident Magistrate’s Court, before Senior Resident Magistrate Yusto Ruboroga, seeking to set aside the ex-parte judgment delivered on May 11, 2026, and the Sh100 million compensation awarded to Baba Levo.

However, the trial court dismissed the application, prompting the appeal.

In his appeal, Mr Wasira stated he only learnt of the case after Baba Levo posted a copy of the court decree on his Instagram account, "officialbabalevo", celebrating his victory.

Advocate Kibatala presented 12 grounds of appeal, but the High Court focused on the primary issue: whether Mr Wasira was lawfully served with court summons.

Advocate Kibatala argued that serving summons via WhatsApp was legally unrecognised, as the phone number used had not been submitted to the court for verification.

He maintained that the burden of proving proper service lay squarely on the respondent, Baba Levo.

Furthermore, Advocate Kibatala noted that court records failed to show that the process server was legally registered under the Court Brokers and Process Servers Regulations of 2017.

He added that a newspaper advertisement published within Tanzania could not reasonably be expected to reach a party whose records showed he was in Houston, Texas, USA.

In response, counsel for Baba Levo argued that Order V, Rule 16 of the Civil Procedure Code allows for substituted service, including electronic means, when a party cannot be located.

He maintained that since Mr Wakazi failed to prove at the trial court that the WhatsApp number was not his, he could not object to the appeal.

The respondent's advocate further contended that the challenge regarding the process server’s registration was a new issue, and that the date anomaly in the process server's affidavit was a minor clerical error that did not invalidate the proceedings.

He added that Mr Wasira’s admission of being a Dar es Salaam resident validated service by publication, regardless of his ties to Houston.

However, Justice Morris held that procedural rules could not override fundamental principles of natural justice.

“An ex-parte court decision carrying such weight is not merely a matter of procedural convenience; it is a major violation of a party’s right to be heard,” Justice Morris ruled, emphasising that deciding a matter ex-parte is a measure of absolute last resort.

The judge observed that the sole evidence of service was an affidavit by the court process server claiming to have served Mr Wasira via WhatsApp.

However, the affidavit was dated February 7, 2025, whilst claiming service took place a day later, on February 8, 2025.

“An affidavit confirming beforehand something that has not yet occurred is not a matter of ordinary negligence. It cannot be relied upon, as the court cannot safely make a decision relying on the truth of a document which, considering its own dates, could not have been true when prepared,” stated Justice Morris.

Allowing the appeal, the High Court quashed the trial court's orders and directed that Civil Suit No. 1696 of 2025 be heard afresh before a different magistrate after the appellant files his statement of defence.

Each party was ordered to bear their own costs.

In the original suit, filed before he secured the Kigoma Urban parliamentary seat, Baba Levo, an entrepreneur, journalist, and musician, had sued Mr Wasira over alleged social media posts alleging he had stolen electronic items in the US, demanding Sh6 billion in damages.