In March 2026, composer Lebo M filed a $27 million lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California against comedian Learnmore Jonasi over a viral joke that “mistranslated” the iconic Zulu chant from The Lion King. The legal action seeks damages under the Lanham Act, trade libel, and defamation, alleging the parody devalued the song’s commercial prestige and intentionally misrepresented a culturally significant masterpiece as “meaningless gibberish.”
What is the most expensive joke in history? For Zimbabwean comedian Learnmore Jonasi, it might be 30 seconds of stand-up. In a lawsuit that has attracted significant attention across the entertainment industry, legendary Lion King composer Lebo M is suing Jonasi for a staggering $27 million.
The controversy stems from a viral clip about the ‘true’ meaning of the iconic Zulu chant that opens The Circle of Life. Jonasi has performed a bit where he “reveals” the “true” meaning of the Zulu chant*.* While the world laughed, Lebo M saw something else: trade libel, defamation, and a threat to one of the most valuable musical assets in cinema history. This week, we’re breaking down the legal battle between satire and cultural guardianship.
What are the Legal Facts of the Case – (Lebohang Morake v. Learnmore Mwanyenyeka)
For years, Jonasi has performed a bit where he “reveals” the “true” meaning of the Zulu chant “Nants’ ingonyama bakithi Baba.” Jonasi claims it translates to something mundane and panicked, like:
“Look, there’s a lion! Oh my god, it’s a lion!”.
The virality of this joke comes from a short clip from the podcast One54 Africa.
Lebo M did not find the joke amusing, particularly given that the actual translation is:
“Here comes a lion, Father / Oh yes, it’s a lion.”
(In Zulu, “Ingonyama” also serves as an honorific for “King”).
In March 2026, Lebo M filed a $27 million lawsuit against Jonasi, arguing that the joke:
- Misinterprets a culturally significant Zulu hymn.
- Devalues his intellectual property and the spiritual weight of the work.
- Causes reputational damage, as the viral nature of the joke has led many to believe the “funny” translation is the real one.
What Intellectual Property Is Actually Involved?
The intellectual property at the heart of the dispute is the opening Zulu chant (“Nants’ ingonyama bagithi Baba”) from the song “Circle of Life.” A copyright. But this isn’t a typical copyright case.
While Lebo M (Lebohang Morake) holds copyright interests in the composition and performance, this isn’t a traditional “you stole my song” copyright infringement case.
Instead, the “IP” is being treated as:
- A commercial asset, and
- A cultural brand tied to Lebo M’s professional identity.
The lawsuit argues that the chant has a specific commercial value and cultural “origin” that the comedian is misrepresenting.
Hence, shifting the issue away from ownership of expression and toward protection of reputation and value.
Why Is This Not a Copyright Case?
Whenever we hear about a musician suing someone over a song, our legal brains immediately jump to copyright infringement. We think of sampling, “stolen” melodies, or unlicensed covers. But in the case of Morake v. Jonasi, copyright is not the primary basis of the claim.
Why? Because Learnmore Jonasi isn’t trying to be the artist. He isn’t selling the song, or sampling the track in a new pop hit, so it is unlikely to amount to artistic appropriation. From a legal perspective, his conduct is unlikely to constitute theft of intellectual property, rather, it is a form of critical or disparaging expression directed at the work itself.
To understand this, we have to look at the fundamental difference between protecting an expression and protecting a reputation.
- Copyright Infringement: This protects the creator’s right to control how their work is reproduced or performed. If Jonasi had used the master recording in a commercial without permission, that’s a copyright issue.
- Defamation & Disparagement: This protects the value of the creator’s reputation and the commercial prestige of the work itself.
Lebo M isn’t suing because Jonasi used the lyrics, he’s suing because of what Jonasi said about them. The argument is that by “jokingly” mistranslating a majestic Zulu hymn into a panicked shout, Jonasi has “devalued” the song as a professional asset.
Quick Note: This is a US case, filed specifically in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California (Los Angeles). Hence, the following four claims are of US jurisdiction.
Applying the Principles: The Four Claims of the Suit
Since Jonasi is alleged to have presented his “translation” as authoritative fact on a viral podcast, Lebo M is using four specific legal tools to claim that $27 million in damages:
- The Lanham Act (Section 43(a))
- Defamation Per Se
- Trade Libel (Disparagement)
- Tortious Interference
The Lanham Act – Section 43(a)
Section 43(a) prohibits “false designations of origin” and “false descriptions” in commercial advertising or promotion. It’s designed to prevent consumers from being misled about a product.
IN APPLICATION
Lebo M is arguing that the “Circle of Life” chant is a commercial product and his brand. By Jonasi telling the podcast audience (and his live crowd), “This is what it actually means,” he is allegedly creating “commercial confusion.” The lawsuit claims Jonasi presented himself as an authority on the language to “rebrand” the song’s meaning for his own commercial gain
Defamation Per Se
Defamation is a false statement presented as fact that harms someone’s reputation.
“Per Se” means the statement is so inherently damaging that the plaintiff doesn’t even have to prove specific financial loss, the harm is assumed. This usually applies to statements regarding professional incompetence or criminal acts.
The key issue for the court:
Would a reasonable audience treat the statement as fact or as obvious comedy?
Lebo M argues that by calling the chant a “panicked shout” or “gibberish,” Jonasi is attacking his professional integrity. It implies that a world-class composer didn’t actually write a majestic hymn, but instead just recorded “accidental” noise.
Trade Libel (Business Disparagement)
Unlike personal defamation, Trade Libel is an attack on the quality of a product. You have to prove “Actual Malice” (the person knew it was false or didn’t care) and Special Damages (specific, documented financial loss).
This is where the $20 million in actual damages comes in. Lebo M’s team claims the “joke” has gone so viral that it has “cheapened” the song. If Disney or other licensees feel the song has become a “meme” rather than a “masterpiece,” they might be less likely to feature it in high-end projects, directly hitting Lebo M’s royalty stream.
Tortious Interference with Prospective Economic Advantage
This happens when a defendant’s “wrongful” conduct intentionally disrupts a business relationship that the plaintiff expects to result in a financial benefit.
Lebo M has a 30-year relationship with The Walt Disney Company. The lawsuit alleges that Jonasi’s mockery has created a “hostile commercial environment” for the Lion King franchise. They argue Jonasi knew his viral comments would interfere with Lebo M’s ongoing negotiations or royalty agreements with Disney.
How Would This Play Out Under Malaysia?
In Malaysia, trademark holders rely on the Trade Marks Act 2019 to safeguard their commercial identity. Under the act, right holders are granted exclusive powers to protect their registered marks from being used in a way that causes public confusion or unfairly damages the reputation of a well-known brand.
While this dispute is unfolding in the United States, the underlying legal tensions are not unique to its courts. If a similar situation arose in Malaysia, the claim would likely be framed very differently, with a stronger emphasis on reputation, false statements, and commercial harm, rather than expansive statutory tools like the Lanham Act.
Defamation Under Malaysian Law
In Malaysia, defamation is primarily governed by the Defamation Act 1957 and common law principles. The core question would be whether the comedian’s statement:
- Was presented as fact, rather than obvious humour or satire; and
- Would lower the reputation of the claimant in the eyes of a reasonable person.
Malaysian courts have traditionally taken a context-based approach, meaning the setting of the statement matters. A stand-up routine or podcast appearance would likely be viewed through the lens of entertainment, where exaggeration is expected.
So, the key question is: Would an ordinary audience member genuinely believe the translation was real?
If the answer is no, the claim would struggle. But if the statement is seen as misleading or capable of being taken seriously, particularly in a viral, decontextualised clip, liability becomes more plausible.
Injurious Falsehood
Malaysia does recognise a form of trade libel, known as injurious falsehood. This protects against false statements that damage the economic value of a business or product.
However, the threshold is high. A claimant must prove:
- The statement was false
- It was made maliciously (or without regard for the truth)
- It caused actual financial loss
Applying this to the Lion King scenario, Lebo M would face a significant hurdle. It is not enough to argue that the joke “cheapened” the song, there must be clear evidence of financial damage, such as lost licensing deals or reduced royalties.
No Direct Equivalent to the Lanham Act
Unlike the United States, Malaysia does not have a direct equivalent to the Lanham Act’s false advertising provisions.
Instead, similar claims would need to be brought under:
- Passing off (if there is misrepresentation tied to goodwill), or
- General tort principles
But crucially, passing off requires a misrepresentation in the course of trade, which may be difficult to establish in a purely comedic context.
The Practical Reality
In practice, a Malaysian court is likely to be cautious about extending liability too far into the realm of comedy and satire. Freedom of expression, while not absolute, is still a relevant consideration, particularly where the statement is clearly intended to entertain rather than inform.
A punchline delivered on stage can quickly become a standalone “fact” online, reaching audiences far beyond its intended setting.
Navigating the difference might seem highly complex, but this is where Quality Oracle’s 30+ years of experience come in. Whether you’re a local startup or a global multinational, we can help you navigate these high-stakes precedents into actionable protection for your IP in the Malaysian market.
“Planning to take your brand global? Leverage Quality Oracle’s extensive network of vetted international associates to ensure your intellectual property remains protected in every jurisdiction.”
Contact Quality Oracle’s Whatsapp for quick replies
Conclusion
Whether in Los Angeles or Kuala Lumpur, this dispute ultimately raises the same question:
At what point does a joke stop being harmless humour, and start becoming a legally actionable statement?
For businesses and creators alike, the answer may increasingly depend not on intent, but on how the audience receives it and how far it spreads.
While we do not know the outcome and the decision of the judges, stay tuned for future updates or interesting information on IP law.
Whether in Los Angeles or Kuala Lumpur, the line between humour and liability is thinning. Don’t leave your brand’s reputation to chance.
Trust the professionals at Quality Oracle. With a high success rate in overcoming IP objections and decades of experience in trademark and copyright protection, we are your partners in building and defending your intellectual assets.
