South African composer and The Lion King producer Lebohang “Lebo M” Morake has been ordered by a United States federal court to pay US$39,560 in statutory at...
South African composer and The Lion King producer Lebohang “Lebo M” Morake has been ordered by a United States federal court to pay US$39,560 in statutory attorneys’ fees to Zimbabwean comedian Learnmore Jonasi, also known as Learnmore Mwanyenyeka, following their legal dispute over a joke about a famous Zulu chant from The Lion King.
The ruling followed Jonasi’s successful claim that he was the prevailing party under California’s anti-SLAPP law after Morake abandoned his original claims against the comedian.
The court calculated Jonasi’s reasonable attorneys’ fees at US$39,560 but rejected his request for an additional upward multiplier that would have increased the amount awarded.
Advertisement
Jonasi had reportedly paid only about US$5,350 out of pocket for his legal representation. His lawyers substantially discounted their fees while defending the comedian’s First Amendment free-speech rights.
Despite the amount actually paid by Jonasi, the court based the statutory award on the reasonable value of the legal services provided rather than the amount the comedian personally paid his lawyers.
The legal dispute began after Jonasi appeared on a podcast and joked about the meaning of the well-known opening chant, “Nants’ ingonyama bagithi Baba”, from The Lion King song Circle of Life.
During the podcast appearance, Jonasi offered his own humorous translation of the Zulu phrase. Instead of the traditional interpretation associated with the chant, he jokingly rendered it as, “Look, there’s a lion. Oh my God.”
The joke later attracted the attention of Morake, who was involved in the creation and production of music associated with The Lion King.
Morake subsequently launched a multimillion-dollar lawsuit in California against Jonasi. The claims included allegations of defamation and misrepresentation.
According to the dispute, Morake argued that Jonasi’s comments trivialised what he regarded as a significant cultural composition.
The legal battle eventually ended after Morake abandoned his claims against the comedian.
Jonasi then sought to recover his legal costs under California’s anti-SLAPP statute. The law is designed to protect speech and other activities involving matters of public interest from lawsuits intended to suppress protected expression.
The court’s decision on attorneys’ fees focused on whether Jonasi qualified as the prevailing party under California’s anti-SLAPP law after Morake withdrew his claims.
The court did not rule on whether Jonasi’s humorous translation of the Zulu phrase was linguistically or culturally correct.
Instead, the ruling was concerned with the legal question of Jonasi’s entitlement to attorneys’ fees after successfully defending himself under the anti-SLAPP law.
The US$39,560 award therefore relates specifically to the legal proceedings and the statutory entitlement to attorneys’ fees. It does not amount to a court endorsement of Jonasi’s humorous interpretation of the Lion King chant.
The case has nevertheless attracted attention because it brought together entertainment, comedy, cultural expression and free-speech issues.
Jonasi, a Zimbabwean comedian, became involved in the legal dispute after making what was presented as a joke during a podcast appearance.
Morake, a South African composer and producer associated with The Lion King, subsequently pursued legal action over the comments.
The dispute developed into a wider legal battle over protected speech and the circumstances under which a person can be sued over comments concerning a creative or cultural work.
The anti-SLAPP proceedings became particularly important to Jonasi because the law provides a mechanism for defendants to challenge lawsuits that they argue target protected speech.
After Morake abandoned his original claims, Jonasi sought to recover the legal costs incurred while defending himself.
The court ultimately determined that Jonasi was the prevailing party for purposes of the relevant California anti-SLAPP provisions and awarded US$39,560 in statutory attorneys’ fees.
The court, however, declined to apply the additional multiplier requested by Jonasi. As a result, the award remained at the calculated reasonable value of the legal services.
The difference between Jonasi’s personal expenditure and the final award is notable. Although he reportedly paid approximately US$5,350 to his lawyers, the court considered the reasonable value of the legal work rather than simply reimbursing the amount he personally paid.
His lawyers had reportedly discounted their fees while representing him in the case.
The dispute also raised questions about the relationship between comedy and cultural expression. Jonasi’s comments concerned a well-known phrase associated with The Lion King, while Morake regarded the underlying composition as culturally significant.
However, the latest court ruling was not a decision on the cultural meaning of the phrase itself.
Instead, the court’s focus was the legal status of Jonasi as the prevailing party and his entitlement to attorneys’ fees following the withdrawal of Morake’s claims.
The US$39,560 award represents another stage in a legal dispute that began with a comedian’s humorous interpretation of a well-known line from one of the world’s best-known animated films.
The case also demonstrates how comments made in entertainment settings can develop into legal disputes involving issues beyond the original joke.
For Jonasi, the court ruling provides an award for the legal services involved in defending his free-speech rights under the anti-SLAPP proceedings.
For Morake, the ruling adds a financial obligation following the abandonment of the original claims.
The court’s decision does not establish that Morake acted unlawfully by bringing the original case, nor does it determine the correctness of either party’s interpretation of the cultural significance of the chant.
The ruling is specifically concerned with the attorneys’ fees arising from the anti-SLAPP proceedings.
The legal dispute has therefore moved beyond the original podcast joke and into questions concerning free speech, legal costs and the protection of expression under California law.
The US$39,560 award marks the latest development in the case involving the South African composer and Zimbabwean comedian.
