By George Nkhuwa
ABOUT USING WhatsApp TO SERVE COURT DOCUMENTS
Christopher Mvunga sued Miles Sampa in the High Court, claiming damages for defamation in relation to statements made by Sampa on his Facebook page.
Before commencing the action, Mvunga, as required under Zambian law, prepared and attempted to serve a demand letter on Sampa using a courier at the official constituency office of the Member of Parliament for Matero, where Sampa was ordinarily found. However, when the courier reached the office, Sampa declined to receive and acknowledge the demand letter.
Mvunga then decided to serve the demand letter by sending it to Sampa via a WhatsApp number ending with 332, which belonged to Sampa and was registered in his name. After sending the demand letter, double ticks were observed, signifying delivery of the message.
Mvunga subsequently filed an affidavit of service in court, detailing the process used to serve the letter, and also obtained a document from Airtel confirming that the WhatsApp number belonged to Sampa.
However, upon commencement of the trial, Sampa raised an objection seeking to set aside Mvunga’s action on the basis that a demand letter had not been properly served on him as required by the rules of court.
Sampa argued that service via WhatsApp Messenger was not a mode of service recognized under the Rules of Court. He further contended that Mvunga had failed to demonstrate that he had received the demand letter, which he claimed was a mandatory requirement where service is not personal.
He submitted that the failure to serve the demand letter in accordance with the law constituted a serious breach of a fundamental rule of court.
The High Court dismissed Sampa’s application and found that Mvunga had substantially complied with the rules of court. The Court noted that Mvunga had filed an affidavit of service explaining how service was effected, had taken steps to personally serve the demand letter, and had demonstrated that Sampa was aware of the claim.
The Court further held that demand letters do not automatically attract the strict rules of substituted service applicable to writs or summonses. And that a demand letter is a pre litigation step required for commencing proceedings, but it is not itself a court process or originating document requiring personal or substituted service under the ordinary rules governing court proceedings.
However, the Court cautioned that WhatsApp alone is an unreliable method if one intends to rely on a demand letter in court, as there is no express rule allowing such service. If the defendant later denies receipt, the entire action risks being declared irregular or a nullity. Accordingly, while WhatsApp may be used as an informal or supplementary means of notification, it should not be relied upon exclusively.
This judgment highlights that where a defendant refuses to accept or acknowledge a demand letter, the claimant must demonstrate attempted service and may rely on an affidavit of service explaining the circumstances of non receipt. Such efforts constitute sufficient compliance with the requirement to serve a demand letter, and WhatsApp may be used as an additional means to notify the defendant.
Christopher Mvunga v Miles Bwalya Sampa (2025/HP/0188) [2026] ZMHC 27 (28 January 2026)
