THE operators of Trauma Centre in Borrowdale have sued CIMAS Health Group (Private) Limited in the High Court for US$1 000 001 in defamation damages, over a bulletin sent to the medical aid group’s members accusing the hospital of installing a hidden camera.
Vislink Investments (Private) Limited, trading as Trauma Centre, issued summons on 6 October 2026 under case number HCH5019/26. It claims the sum of US$1 000 001, interest from the date of summons to the date of payment in full, and costs of suit.
In its declaration, Vislink describes itself as a company carrying on business as a 24-hour medical care centre and hospital. It describes CIMAS Health Group as a provider of medical aid packages, cover and health and wellness services based at East Block, Borrowdale Office Park, Harare.
Vislink says that on or about 14 September 2026, CIMAS published a membership bulletin titled “Member Update on Access to Services at Trauma Centre, Borrowdale” to its members and a number of medical practitioners.
The hospital further says the bulletin is widely distributed to CIMAS members in Zimbabwe and internationally, through the internet and on social media platforms.
According to a letter from Vislink’s lawyers, Venturas & Samukange, the bulletin said: “Further, last week Trauma installed a surveillance camera within the leased premises without our knowledge or consent.”
The lawyers said this was presented as a statement of fact, not as a suspicion requiring verification.
The lawsuit follows a separate dispute in the High Court, in which CIMAS filed an urgent chamber application (HCHC 777/26) seeking an interdict against Vislink and Drochia Investments (Private) Limited over the alleged camera and patient confidentiality.
In an opposing affidavit, Trauma Centre’s Rutendo Mhembere said the respondents “specifically deny that we have recently installed any cameras”.
She said the only camera in the doctors’ wing was an “ALHUA” unit above the main entrance, which had been there for ten years for security purposes.
She also described the application as an abuse of court process, said it was not urgent, and pointed to an arbitration clause in the lease agreement.
Vislink’s lawyers say a court-ordered inspection on 16 September, two days after the bulletin, failed to turn up the alleged camera, as CIMAS was “unable to identify, point out or produce” it.
They also say CIMAS has since moved to withdraw the High Court case, but argue that this does not retract the bulletin or correct the impression it created among members.
On 21 September, the law firm wrote to CIMAS Medical Aid Society demanding a retraction within 48 hours. It also demanded corrections in two daily newspapers, circulation of the correction to everyone who received the bulletin, and removal of the publication from all electronic platforms under CIMAS’s control.
It warned that failure to comply would lead to legal action for damages.
The summons was issued about two weeks later. On 7 October, Venturas & Samukange asked the Sheriff of the High Court to urgently serve it on CIMAS at Borrowdale Office Park.
The Sheriff’s office stamped the request as received on 8 October.
Under the summons, CIMAS has ten days after service, excluding weekends and public holidays, to enter an appearance to defend.
Failing that, the claim may be heard without further notice to it.
