beda jonathan amuli vs kuboja ngungu others 2011 tzhc 2021 2 may 2011

beda jonathan amuli vs kuboja ngungu others 2011 tzhc 2021 2 may 2011

The article published by the 2nd and 3rd defendants was defamatory of the Plaintiff, who is a qualified architect. The 1st defendant did not utter the defamatory words and is not liable. The 2nd and 3rd defendants failed in their duty of care by publishing the libelous article without due diligence. The Plaintiff is entitled to general and exemplary damages, but not aggravated damages, as there was no evidence of malice or aggravating conduct beyond the publication itself.

Citation
beda jonathan amuli vs kuboja ngungu others 2011 tzhc 2021 2 may 2011
Parties
Plaintiff: Beda Jonathan Amuli; 1st Defendant: Kuboja Ng'ungu; 2nd Defendant: The Editor, Mtanzania Newspaper; 3rd Defendant: Habari Corporation
Court
TZHC
Jurisdiction
Tanzania
Judgment Date
2 May 2011
Procedural Posture
Civil / Judgment
Outcome
Plaintiff's claim against 2nd and 3rd defendants allowed; claim against 1st defendant dismissed.
Legal Topics
Defamation, Libel, Damages, Press Liability
Source Language
English
Tort Media Law Defamation Libel Damages Press Liability

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Beda Jonathan Amuli

Plaintiff

Kuboja Ng'ungu

1st Defendant

The Editor, Mtanzania Newspaper

2nd Defendant

Habari Corporation

3rd Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the article published by the 2nd and 3rd defendants in Mtanzania newspaper is defamatory of the Plaintiff
  2. 2 Whether the words alleged by the Plaintiff to be defamatory of him were uttered by the 1st defendant
  3. 3 Whether the plaintiff suffered any damage

Ratio Decidendi

The article published by the 2nd and 3rd defendants was defamatory of the Plaintiff, who is a qualified architect. The 1st defendant did not utter the defamatory words and is not liable. The 2nd and 3rd defendants failed in their duty of care by publishing the libelous article without due diligence. The Plaintiff is entitled to general and exemplary damages, but not aggravated damages, as there was no evidence of malice or aggravating conduct beyond the publication itself.

Court Disposition

Plaintiff's claim against 2nd and 3rd defendants allowed; claim against 1st defendant dismissed.

Orders

  • 2nd and 3rd defendants to pay Plaintiff TZS 40,000,000 as general damages and TZS 5,000,000 as exemplary damages, with interest at court rates from date of judgment until payment in full.
  • 2nd and 3rd defendants to pay Plaintiff and 1st Defendant their respective costs of the suit plus interest thereon at court rates from the date of suit until payment in full.