{"id":11130,"date":"2026-07-13T18:53:01","date_gmt":"2026-07-13T18:53:01","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/usatrustedlawyers.com\/blog\/lion-king-music-lawsuit-dropped-but-comedian-wants-payback\/"},"modified":"2026-07-13T18:53:01","modified_gmt":"2026-07-13T18:53:01","slug":"lion-king-music-lawsuit-dropped-but-comedian-wants-payback","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/usatrustedlawyers.com\/blog\/lion-king-music-lawsuit-dropped-but-comedian-wants-payback\/","title":{"rendered":"Lion King Music Lawsuit Dropped, But Comedian Wants Payback"},"content":{"rendered":"\n
\n

\n\tThe composer of the Zulu chant from The Lion King<\/em>\u2019s \u201cCircle of Life\u201d has dropped his lawsuit against a comedian who joked about the song on a podcast \u2014 but the comic is now demanding that he repay his legal bills for filing a \u201cfrivolous\u201d case.<\/p>\n

\n\tLess than four months after South African musician Lebo M (Lebohang Morake) sued comic Learnmore Jonasi (Learnmore Mwanyenyeky) over his viral bit<\/a> about the iconic Disney song, a federal judge dismissed the case Friday (July 10) because the accuser had voluntarily agreed to drop it.<\/p>\n

\n

\n

\t\t\t\t\tRelated\t\t<\/p>\n<\/h3>\n

\n
\n
\n
\n
\n

\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/p><\/div>\n<\/p><\/div>\n<\/p><\/div>\n<\/div><\/div>\n<\/div>\n

\n\tMorake\u2019s move to end the case came after attorneys for Jonasi argued the lawsuit was a \u201csham\u201d and a clear violation of the First Amendment, aimed at punishing a comedian who did nothing more than engage in free speech. If granted, their motion would have not only ended the lawsuit, but also allowed Jonasi to demand Morake repay his hefty legal bills.<\/p>\n

\n\tIn dismissing the case on Friday, the judge explicitly noted that Jonasi could still seek such penalties, which are designed to deter bad lawsuits that restrict free speech. And in a statement to Billboard<\/em> on Monday (July 13), his attorney Bryan Sullivan said they would do so.<\/p>\n

\n\t\u201cFrom the outset, we maintained that the lawsuit was frivolous and constituted an attempt to infringe upon our client\u2019s First Amendment rights,\u201d Sullivan said. \u201cAs a result of this baseless litigation, the plaintiff walks away with nothing.\u201d<\/p>\n

\n\tIn his own lengthy statement on Instagram<\/a>, Morake sharply criticized \u201csensationalist headlines\u201d over the dismissal of his case, stressing that the two sides had \u201cmutually agreed to settle the matter\u201d and that he had not suffered a loss in court.<\/p>\n

\n\t\u201cThroughout this process, Lebo M consistently demonstrated a willingness to pursue dialogue over division,\u201d adding that he had wanted to avoid \u201cprolonged litigation\u201d with Jonasi. \u201cThe settlement reflects that philosophy.\u201d<\/p>\n

\n\tThe unusual lawsuit, filed in March, centered on \u201cNants\u2019ingonyama bagithi Baba,\u201d the chant heard at the start of \u201cCircle of Life,\u201d the first track on the chart-topping 1994 soundtrack to The<\/em> Lion King<\/em>. Morake wrote and performed that element of the song, which translates into English as \u201cAll hail the king, we all bow in the presence of the king.\u201d<\/p>\n

\n\tAt issue in the dispute was Jonasi\u2019s February appearance on the popular podcast One54 Africa, in which the comedian joked that the chant translates as \u201cLook, there\u2019s a lion. Oh my god.\u201d The clip eventually went viral, earning 116K likes on the podcast\u2019s Instagram and pulling in 337K views of the full episode on YouTube.<\/p>\n

\n\tSeeking $27 million in damages for defamation and other alleged wrongdoing, Morake called the comedian\u2019s statement a \u201cfabricated, trivializing distortion, meant as a sick joke for unlawful self-profit and destruction of the imaginative and artistic work of Lebo M.\u201d<\/p>\n

\n\tThe case faced long odds from the start. The First Amendment broadly shields comedy and other forms of creative expression from legal liability for defamation. After Jonasi\u2019s attorneys move to dismiss that case on those grounds in May, Morake filed an updated version of the case with entirely new accusations of federal trademark violations, but such allegations also are difficult to win in U.S. courts.<\/p>\n

\n\tWeeks after the updated case was filed, Jonasi\u2019s attorneys move again to toss it out \u2014 arguing that the case \u201ctargets core First Amendment protections\u201d by trying to \u201cpunish\u201d a comedian simply because he had been offended by a joke: \u201cBecause the First Amendment is so important in our society, the court should \u2026 not allow plaintiff to twist trademark law to suppress free speech.\u201d<\/p>\n

\n\tRather than respond to that argument, Morake\u2019s attorneys filed a joint motion last week along with Jonasi\u2019s lawyers, saying they had \u201cfully discussed the matter\u201d and he had agreed to dismiss his case in its entirety. <\/p>\n

\n\tThe request was made \u201cwithout prejudice,\u201d meaning the composer could potentially refile the lawsuit at some point in the future. But the agreement also said the dismissal \u201cshall in no way waive or otherwise impact\u201d Jonasi\u2019s right to seek repayment of his attorney\u2019s fees under California\u2019s anti-SLAPP law.<\/p>\n

\n\tThat statute is designed to restrict lawsuits that harm free speech, and one of its key provisions empowers victorious defendants to win back their legal bills from dismissed lawsuits. And in his statement to Billboard<\/em> on Monday, Jonasi\u2019s attorney Sullivan confirmed that his client would now seek the fees for those exact reasons.<\/p>\n

\n\t\u201cWe remain committed to vigorously defending our client\u2019s constitutional rights and protecting against meritless claims designed to chill protected speech,\u201d Sullivan said.<\/p>\n

\n\tMorake\u2019s attorneys did not immediately return a request for comment on why their client had dropped the case or on the looming demand for attorney\u2019s fees.<\/p>\n


\"Billboard
<\/a><\/p>\n<\/div>\n