‘The Lion King’ composer ordered to pay $40K in legal fees after suing comedian over joke about film’s song
A composer behind The Lion King’s iconic “Circle of Life” must pay nearly $40,000 (P2.4 million) in legal fees after his lawsuit against a comedian over a podcast joke backfired.
According to a report by Billboard, an Aug. 28 ruling granted comedian Learnmore Jonasi’s demand for nearly $40,000 in legal fees from Lebohang Morake, popularly known as Lebo M, after the composer dropped his lawsuit over Jonasi’s viral podcast joke.
Jonasi had argued that the suit was baseless and threatened his First Amendment rights, which encompass five core freedoms in the US Constitution. The judge, meanwhile, cited California’s anti-SLAPP law, which protects free speech.
“Defendant succeeded in his objective and prevailed on his anti-SLAPP motion,” Judge Josephine Staton wrote. “He is therefore entitled to attorneys’ fees and costs.
He was awarded $39,560, or approximately P2.47 million, covering more than 50 hours of work by the two attorneys who handled his case.
The issue stemmed from a February appearance by comedian Learnmore Jonasi on the podcast One54 Africa, where he joked about the meaning of “Nants’ingonyama bagithi Baba,” the famous chant written and performed by Lebo M for Circle of Life. Jonasi jokingly translated the chant as “Look, there’s a lion. Oh my god,” rather than its actual meaning, “All hail the king, we all bow in the presence of the king.”
The joke later went viral, with the clip garnering more than 300,000 YouTube views. Lebo M subsequently filed a lawsuit in March over the comedy bit, claiming the Jonasi intentionally mocked “the chant’s cultural significance with exaggerated imitations."
He demanded $27 million (P1.6 billion) in damages in a lawsuit accusing Jonasi of defamation and other wrongdoing, describing the bit as a “fabricated, trivializing distortion, meant as a sick joke for unlawful self-profit.”
For his part, Jonasi’s attorneys quickly moved to dismiss the lawsuit, arguing that it “targets core First Amendment protections” because it seeks to punish a comedian simply for telling a joke that offended the plaintiff.
“Because the First Amendment is so important in our society, the court should…not allow plaintiff to twist trademark law to suppress free speech," they added.
"Our client is extremely pleased with this result, which brings this matter to a successful conclusion and represents a complete victory in the case," Jonasi’s attorney Bryan Sullivan said of the ruling.
