THE BRIDGE FIGHTS BACK AGAINST FORMER FNB CEO DENNIS MBINGO
.....publication challenges a defamation lawsuit won by default by Mbingo. Newspaper wants a rescision order and challenges Mbingo on merits of the case and many procedurall errors that led to him winning
The High Court of Eswatini is embroiled in a high-stakes legal battle as The Bridge Online Publication seeks to overturn a controversial defamation judgment issued against them last October. The case, which pits the media outlet and its co-applicant against businessman and former FNB CEO Dennis Tikhalo Mbingo, has raised critical questions about jurisdictional errors, misidentification, and press freedom.
At the heart of the rescission application lies the assertion that the court’s October 17, 2024, judgment was fatally flawed due to two key errors. First, Swazi Bridge argues that the court incorrectly identified one fan of the publication as the editor, a role he never held. This mischaracterization, they claim, unfairly implicated him in the publication’s editorial decisions. Second, Swazi Bridge contends it was never properly served with court papers, violating fundamental principles of due process as they only learned of the controversial judgement against them through the media.
Legal Grounds for Rescission
The applicants’ legal team, led by lawyer Sibusiso Nhlabatsi through the support of Campaign for Freedom of Expression, has anchored their argument in Rule 42(1)(a) of the High Court Rules, which allows judgments to be rescinded if granted erroneously in the absence of a party. Citing the precedent set in Van Heerden v Bronkhors, Nhlabatsi argues that the court was unaware of critical facts—namely, that cited persons in the initial judgement's non-editorial role and Swazi Bridge's status as a "peregrinus" (foreign entity)—which, if known, would have precluded the judgment.
Further bolstering their case, the applicants reference Lodhi 2 Properties Investments CC v Bonder Developments, where courts ruled that rescission is warranted if a mistake, whether apparent in the record or revealed later, materially influenced the judgment. They assert that the misidentification of the partiesa associated with Swazi Bridge meets this standard, as it directly impacted the court’s decision to hold him liable.
Former FNB eSwatini CEO Dennis Mbingo
Jurisdictional Challenges
A pivotal argument revolves around Swazi Bridge’s claim that it operates outside the court’s jurisdiction. The applicants cite legal authorities like Herbstein and Van Winsen’s The Practice of the Supreme Court of South Africa, which stipulate that a peregrinus must be properly served through attach ad confirmandum jurisdictionem (attachment to confirm jurisdiction) before any binding order can be issued.
Since Swazi Bridge alleges it was never served, the judgment against it, they argue, is null and void. Defending the Publication’s Content Beyond procedural objections, the applicants mount a substantive defence, asserting that the article in question was truthful and served the public interest—a complete defence under defamation law. They point to the Shongwe v The Swazi Observer ruling, where Eswatini’s Supreme Court affirmed that justification (truth for public benefit) and fair comment are valid defences.
The Namibian case Trustco Group International Ltd v Shikongo is also invoked, emphasizing the balance between free speech and dignity. The applicants argue that their reporting met the standard of “reasonable publication,” a doctrine upheld in South Africa’s National Media Ltd v Bogoshi, which protects journalists who act responsibly in the public interest. Addressing Allegations of Delay and Default The respondents have insinuated that the rescission bid is untimely, but the applicants counter that their November 7, 2024, filing—just weeks after the judgment—was prompt.
Lawyer Sibusiso Nhlabatsi represents Swazi Bridge newspaper.
They cite Schmidlin v Multisound, which distinguishes between undue delay and legitimate pauses for mediation. Here, the wrongly cited parties claims they delayed responding under the reasonable belief that talks with Mbingo were ongoing, noting that intermediary Mandla Hlatshwayo had engaged with the plaintiff. As for Swazi Bridge, its default is attributed to the lack of service, rendering the judgment procedurally irregular. A striking subplot are allegation that one of the cited parties was unfairly singled out as “low-hanging fruit.” Though he merely shared the article on social media—unlike the authors, whom Mbingo initially sued but later dropped—he faced disproportionate legal scrutiny.
His compliance with a prior court order (Case No. 1425/2021) to remove the content, he argues, demonstrates good faith and undermines the plaintiff’s punitive demands. If the rescission is granted, the case could return to trial, allowing Swazi Bridge and Mabuza to fully litigate the defamation claims. A denial, however, would leave the October judgment intact, potentially chilling investigative journalism in Eswatini. In their closing submission, Swazi Bridge urges the court to correct what they frame as a “fundamental miscarriage of justice,” stressing that the errors—factual and procedural—strike at the heart of judicial integrity.
The ruling will resonate beyond this case, shaping the interplay between media freedom and legal accountability in the kingdom. The matter was postponed to the next court session. The case has rapidly become a litmus test for Eswatini’s judiciary: Will it correct what appears to be a grave misstep? Or will procedural irregularities be allowed to stand in the face of media freedom?