Filmmaker contests court ruling

4
1234

LOCAL filmmaker Hopewell Chin’ono has approached the Supreme Court to appeal against a High Court ruling which ordered him to pay $3 000 to Peter Pasipamire who provided comments for his documentary titled Pain In My Heart.

BY ALOIS VINGA

Pasipamire had approached the courts seeking to recover money Chin’ono had promised to pay him as a token of appreciation. High Court Judge Justice Susan Mavhangira, who presided over the case in 2013, ruled that based on the evidence, the plaintiff had established on the balance of probabilities that the parties had engaged in an oral agreement and ordered that Pasipamire be paid $3 000.

In his submissions for condonation for late noting of appeal and extension of time in which to appeal, Chin’ono argues that his then legal representative in the matter, Kantor and Immerman, had not notified him of the case outcome two years ago.

“On May 6 2015 I received the shock of my life when I saw an article in NewsDay to the effect that a writ of execution had been issued against me,” said Chin’ono.

“For a moment I thought I was daydreaming. I could not believe that my legal practitioners would not advise me that judgment had been handed down fully knowing that I had been waiting anxiously for the finalisation of this matter for the past two years.”

Chin’ono argues that payment of sources is not only unethical and unprofessional, but might also be construed as an influence on how participants might tell their story.

The appeal is still based on the fact that all participants voluntarily agreed to contribute in order to educate the world about HIV and Aids Chin’ono emphasises the fact that he did not enter into any contract, verbal or written, with the participants.

He maintains that the documentary was in partial fulfilment of the requirements of the Master of Arts in Documentary Practice, which he was studying with Brunel University and declares that the film earned him $7 000 in awards.

The law in Zimbabwe normally requires that any notification for appeal should be made within 15 days from the day of judgment.

4 COMMENTS

  1. Seriously is this news? This newspaper is dying slowly in front of our eyes. Why would any serious editor feature this prominently as a news item. If the Supreme Court had ruled one migh consider it to be a small story. Who is Pasipamire? Who is Chingono? Where does he work? What is his claim to fame? How does one “seek to recover” something that is contests and that was promised lol. You recover something that you have given lol. Mr Trevor Ncube needs to do something fast to save this newspaper from going into obscurity.

  2. Seriously is this news? This newspaper is dying slowly in front of our eyes. Why would any serious editor feature this prominently as a news item. If the Supreme Court had ruled one might consider it to be a small story. Who is Pasipamire? Who is Chingono? Where does he work? What is his claim to fame? How does one “seek to recover” something that is contested and that was promised lol. If newspapers are now reporting on requests to file appeals then God help us when the appeal is granted, it will be on bill boards hey. It’s either the reporter is getting paid by the lawyers of the plaintiff or by Chingono to publish this rubbish. You recover something that you have given lol. Mr Trevor Ncube needs to do something fast to save this newspaper from going into obscurity.

  3. It looks like someone is litigating through the newspaper to me. Something that the courts always have a dim view of. If indeed the filmmaker got to know about the judgement through Newsday as is reported and now his application is also in Newsday then the lawyers for the other side have someone they know at Newsday who they are giving these documents in order to put pressure on the filmmaker to pay up. Something that is wholly unprofessional and disconcerting about both the lawyers and the newspaper. I agree with the filmmaker that if people were paid to comment about their illnesses in films then how will we know if they have not been paid to say what they are saying. Very unethical and corrupt if that were to be the case.

  4. I remember watching this film on line. Here is a link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ldkQWfyuRmI Why would the film maker pay this Pasipamire guy for answering questions in a film when from what Newsday says all the other participants were not paid? Greedy I smell. Does the BBC or Sky or CNN pay all these people we watch being interviewed? If the judge ruled that the film maker should pay then he needs to have his head checked. A reflection of our crazy judiciary. For me the story is of how the judge is bonkers really

Comments are closed.