20170824 TZHC Mwanza

20170824 TZHC Mwanza

The plaintiff failed to prove that the news bulletin aired by the defendants was as alleged in his plaint and not as contended by the defendants. The evidence showed the news reported the plaintiff was accused of involvement, not that he was involved. The publication was based on a public meeting, the plaintiff was given an opportunity to respond, and the defence of qualified privilege applied. There was no proof of malice or falsehood. Therefore, the claim for defamation was not established.

Citation
20170824 TZHC Mwanza
Parties
Plaintiff: Elias G. B. Goroi; Defendant: Independent Television (ITV) Ltd; Defendant: George Marato
Court
TZHC
Jurisdiction
Tanzania
Judgment Date
24 August 2017
Procedural Posture
Civil / Judgment
Outcome
Suit dismissed
Legal Topics
Defamation, Qualified Privilege, Freedom of Expression, Damages
Source Language
English
Tort Law Media Law Constitutional Law Defamation Qualified Privilege Freedom of Expression Damages

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 4 Authorities cited 15 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Elias G. B. Goroi

Plaintiff

Independent Television (ITV) Ltd

Defendant

George Marato

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the news bulletin complained of is defamatory to the plaintiff
  2. 2 Whether as broadcasted, the news bulletin complained of was/is true
  3. 3 Whether the broadcasting of the news bulletin complained of was maliciously done

Ratio Decidendi

The plaintiff failed to prove that the news bulletin aired by the defendants was as alleged in his plaint and not as contended by the defendants. The evidence showed the news reported the plaintiff was accused of involvement, not that he was involved. The publication was based on a public meeting, the plaintiff was given an opportunity to respond, and the defence of qualified privilege applied. There was no proof of malice or falsehood. Therefore, the claim for defamation was not established.

Court Disposition

Suit dismissed

Orders

  • No order as to costs due to the plaintiff's health status
  • Right of appeal explained