20170824 TZHC Mwanza

1 ' ' I . • & • .,J-r .t "'/'' I .

IN THE HIGH COURT OF TANZANIA

AT MWANZA CIVIL CASE NO. 08 OF 2014 j ........ ...._. . ELIAS G. B. GOROI ........................ ~ ........•.....·........... PLAINTIFF '

VERSUS 1. INDEPENDENT TELEVISION (ITV) LT°}· · 2. GEORGE MARATO . . f_ ........ DEFENDANTS \ JUDGMENT OF THE -COURT Date hearing concluded .... 24/7/2017 & Date judgment delivered ... 24/08/2017 Gwae, J The plaintiff, Elias G. B. Goroi brought an action on tort (tortum) of defamation against the 1st defendant, Independent Television ltd (ITV), a Limited Company c_arrying media business, particularly, broadca.sting including news bulletin and 2nd defendant, George Marato, · news reporter for the 1st defendant. In his plaint, the plaintiff prays for judgment and decree against both defendants jointly and severally as herein under; i. That, t.his court to declare that the defendants defamed t h e ~ plaintiff. • .. . .· . W'"f~ 1. ii. That, this court to order the defendants to make an apology to the plaintiff via the same media outlet broader caster with the same wording, tone and at the same time iii. That, the court to order the defendants to pay the plaintiff a sum of Tanzanian Shillings one Billion (1, 000,000, 000/=only being compensation for tarnishing the plaintiff's name· and reputation. iv. That, the court order the defendants to pay the plaintiff a sum of Tanzania Shilling Twenty Million (20, 000, 000/=) being compensation for stress, Psychological imbalance and disturbances sustained by the plaintiff v. · An order of interest on the aforesaid amount in (iii) and

(iv) from the date when each claim accrued to the date of judgment or sooner payment vi. An order that the defendants should jointly and _severally pay interest on the decretal amount at the rate of 22% per annum until payment in full ·vii. An order of general damages as may be ·assessed by this court. viii. Costs of this suit to be upon the d~fendants 1x. Any ~ther relief (s) thrs court may deem fit and .just to grant The generic background of the plaintiff's institution of this suit; being that that on- 13th October 2013 at 8: 00 PM the defendants in their news bulletin · · . aired a new sto:~ containing_defa":atory words against th~·P_laintiff w~r~h-.. w~s a_ired in Swahili and a~cording to the plaintiff it read as .follows; ~ ----. . . . . 2 . "Mkuu wa VlJilaya ya Rorya anashiriki Katika Mtandao wa Wezi wa Mifugo". J In ordinary meaning, the above headline allegedly aired by the defendants meant that the District Commissioner for Rorya District (plaintiff) is taking part in the cattle thieves' rustling network. According the plaintiff the aired words did not only defame him but also psychologically affected the plaintiff and his reputation was lowered in the right thinking members of society. In their joint written statement of defence the defendants denied to have made the above quoted words by stating that the aired news on the material date and time was to the effect

that the plaintiff was accused ('anatuhumiwa kushiriki') to be a cattle rustler with a cattle rustling network and not as complained by the plaintiff. According to the parties' pleadings, the following matters are noted r:1on- contentious between the parties, on 13th October 2013 at about 08:00 hrs there was news aired by the . defendants concerning . the plaintiff and_ that the plaintiff from year 2015 to 2015 was a Rorya District Commissioner (District Commissioner-DC) mandated in the administration of public du~ies and also Chairperson of District Security Committee for · Rorya District. After the pleadings were noted complete and statutory mediation having been marked as failed, final pre-trial conference was held and the following issues, after consLiltation with the parties' advocates, were framed; ~ 3 1. Whether the news bulletin complained of is defamatory to the plaintiff.

2. Whether as broadcasted, the news bulletin complained of was/is true.

3. Whether the broadcasting of the news bulletin complained of was maliciously done. .

4. Whether the defendants have any defence.

5. Whether plaintiff has suffered loss or damage as result of the news bulletin complained of.

6. To what relief (s) are the ·parties entitled During trial· of the plaintiff's suit, both sides had legal serv_ice_s, hence represented, by learned advocates, namely; Mr. Sanga and Mr. Ngalo who throughout the trial appeared representing the plaintiff and both defendants respectively. In establishing the case against the defendants, the plaintiff was able to bring a total of 3 witnesses, the plaintiff inclusive, who appeared as 'PW1', . . Bonditos Moses. Elkumay, a plaintiff's villag_e mate and age mate · residing at the plaintiff's mother land ('PW2') and the plaintiff's son known as Elibeneza Goroi ('PW3') and exhibits tendered and admitted by the court in favour of the plaintiff's suit, were; a letter not dated received as 'PE1' and Air tickets and other related documents collectively admitted as 'PE2'. Essentially, the evidence in -favour of the plaintiff's· case and in the· record is · to the effect that; on the lJth Octobl!r 2013 at 20:00 hrs, the PWl. and~~J 4 'PW2' while watching ITV news, there was news aired in the news bulletin that the plaintiff is a taking part in the cattle rustlers' rustling network, according to the PWl and PW2, the news bulletin aired by the d_efendants was capable of defaming the plai_ntiff and lowering his reputation in the rightful thinking members of the community. The PWl, in his testimony, added that after the news bulletin was aired

he received calls from many people who just wanted to know what went wrong with him. This piece of evidence regarding publication. of alleged defamatory words to third party was also_ supported by the testimony of his son; 'PW3' who said that he was told by his. colleagues at Tumaini University of the ·news aired defaming his father as well as that of '.PW2' who testified that he personally watched that news bulletin. The plaintiff went on testifying that the defendants, particularly thE: 2nd defendant did not denounce the news bulletin despite the fact that he requested him (2 nd defendant) to attend at the press conference held· on 14th October 2013 arranged by him (plaintiff) and demand letter ('PE1') . . requesting for an· apology. The plaintiff also testified that following defamatory -words jointly aired by. both defendants, he subsequently felt sick and he consequently sustained a total blindness and was relieved from duties or ir:i other words he was not re-appoin~ed following the defamatory · words aired by the defendants. After close of the plaintiff's case, the defendants made endeavors to have the case against them dismissed by summoning _its four witnesses, notahly; Marco Lodede who appeared in Court for testimonial purposes as 'DW1',~ 5 George Marato ('DW2'), Zablon Dede ('DW3) and Stephen Chuwa ('DW4'). The defence of the defendants was as briefly as follows; the

'DW1' and· 'DW3' testified that prior to ~he allegedly aired defamatory words that is on 12th October 2013 there was a meeting at Buganjo village chaired by a Member of Parliament (Hon. Lameck Airo-MP) for Rorya Constituency, that the meeting was attended by Buganjo villagers, Village Executive Officer (VEO), W~rd Executive Officer (WEO) and a Councilor of Bukwe Ward. Among agenda· contained in the report said _to have been prepared by the . . village elders, were mentioning of suspects of cattle theft, abusive or impolite language allegedly uttered by the plaintiff (''Wananchi Washenzi hawana busara") during his official visit on 23/6/2013 with a view to combating cattle r~stlers' network within his area of jurisdiction (Rorya District). The . testimonies for the defence . went further informing the court thc;3t reader of the report so appointed was the DW1 (this _is in accordance with . . evidence of DWl, DW2 and DW3) who read the report to the quest of honour and that the community was furious to the plaintiff who by then- _the District Commissioner due his inaction towards cattle theft suspects or . rustlers, he (plaintiff) was therefore suspected to have been cooperating with cattle rustlers' network. Another piece of evidence adduced by _the defence ?IDE('DW2' and 'DW4') during trial is admission of collecting news from the meeting o n - ~ · 6 12th October 2013 and

publishing or airing the same in the ITV news headlines on the following day but strongly contended that the news was reportable as the one accused in the meeting was given a right to be heard by the DW2 through communication by mobile phone and that the plaintiff's replies were absolutely negative by stating he was seriously fighting against cattle theft but the MP, Airo was making his plans (his good mission) impracticable. According to the Testimonies of the 'DW2' and 'DW4' the complaints made by Rorya Civilians to their MP and vice versa an_d equally denial of accusation by the plaintiff were aired on 13/10/2013 and on the following day and further that the news were mere accusation with the headed that and I quote; "Mkuu wa Wilaya ya Rorya anatuhumiwa kushiriki katika . . wa m1"fugo Rorya ... ............................. . " m t an d ao wa w1z1 · The defendants vide 'DW4', Stephen Chuwa were also able to produce a news script . and the same was admitted . and marked .as exhibit 'DE1' and . 'DW4' cemented that the·'DE1' met all essential conditions.for being aired, . . ·_ including giving the plaintiff an opportunity to respond to the accusation leveled against him. This is what in a nutshell marked an end of the trial of_ the suit in question, the parties' advocates subsequently preferred to file their final submissions anq leave to that effect was granted accordingly.

Considerably viewe_d that . the final submissions duly filed pursuant to tt")e court datec;j 3 rd day of July 2017 are ind_ustrious toward preparation of this judgment. -hfft~ _ 7 Before starting determining the farmed issues herein, it is apposite to briefly explain the meaning of the term 'defamation; the word defamation denotes to a publication of a statement which tends to lower a person in the estimation of right thinking members of the society generally or the statement, published capable of m·aking such members of the community hate or avoid the person so defamed. According to the Oxford Dictionary Law 5th Edition, the term defamation is defined as: · "The publications of a statement about a person that tends to lower his reputation _in the opinion of right thinking members of the community or make them shun or avoid him. Defamation is always in words but pictures, gestures and other acts can be defamatory" In other words defamation is a civil wrong which is actionable when publication is a false statement without -any lawful excuse, it refers to a plaint_iff and it must be communicated to a third ._party. See judicial interpretations of the word defamation for instance Astus Njale Masule and Samson Mipawa Molla v. oo·gan lunala (2Q02) TLR 197 as well·as in persuasive decisions in Theaker v Richardson (1915) 3KB 32, Sim v Stretch (1936) 2 All 1237. It is observed vitally

fmportant to also slightly touch, before going to determination of the plaintiff's suit on merit, on the issue of alleged plaintiff's act of joining non-existent entity (1 st defendant) which is only depicted in the final submission filed by the defendants' counsel. I hesitate to base my deciSion on that particular issue for three reasons, firstly,that~ .8 . . upon my careful scrutiny of the defendants' joint written statement of defence nowhere there was a notice of preliminary objection accompanied the same, secondly, the issue allegedly raised, if so, would mandatorily be . . dealt with by this court before commencement of the trial and thirdly, that final submissions are not evidence and therefore the same ought to only reflect the parties' pleadings, evidence so adduced during trial and in addition thereto laws applicable and judicial precedents for court's guidance. In Vidyarthi v Ram Rakha (1957) EA 527 it was held and I quote - "Final submissions should relate to the pleadings and evidence which was adduced in the trial. Final submissions were not evidence.but only aimed at providing a guide to the Court in resolving the issues before the Court" See also a decision of this court (Kimaro, J as she-then was) Southern Tanganyika Game Safaris and another v Ministry of Natural Resources and Tourism and ot~ers (2004) 2 EA 271 . (HCT) . . . The issue . of suing a wrong

party . cannot therefore be raised at this stage. despite the fact that I am not unmindful of the difficulties to be faced by a holder of a decree during execution processes in the event the name of 1st . . defendant in particular was wrongly pleaded as registered companies are · like human beings, have their own names, known and differentiated by their unique registered names, a decision of the Court of Appeal in .Christi~a- Mrimi v. Coca _C_ola Kwanz_a Bottler~ ltd, Civil Appeal_ No.~_ 112 of 2008 (unreported) is· humbly _adopted. . . · .,,,, ..~ 9 · Back to the 1 st issue, 'v,hether the plaintiff was defamed by the defendants', according to the evidence on record adduced by the plaintiff and his 2 witnesses, it goes without saying, that if as testified for the plaintiff's case and without considering the defence _side, the there was a publication of news in the ITV on the material date and time which was under normal and ordinary circumstances could be perc~ived as damaging the plaintiffis reputation as a District Commissioner, a long serving DC as he was appointed _on that post (DC) since 1993 till when he was not re- appointed in the year 2015, he must therefore be a person of mature thinking diligent, resourceful, hard working and honest. Any ordinary person, to my considered view, would therefore primarily consider the news allegedly broadcasted by the defendants (Mkuu

wa Wilaya ya Rorya anashiriki Katika Mtandao wa Wezi wa Mifugo") to .be defamatory, thus if such complained aired news was truly broadcasted by the defendants and was false and or without justification, the finding of this court would be in favour of the plaintiff, in Edwine William v. Managing Director of Arusha International Conference Centre .(1999) .TLR 130, this Court stated; . "The news article in the uhuru news papers originating from the defendant's Managing Director to the effect that the plain_tiff who was mentioned by the name as a director who lost his job was negligent officer and a part to loss of Tshs. 173 million which the defendant~ had was defamatory" . "_"'''B 10 In our case, the complained news bulletin is 'the District Commissioner for Rorya District is a cattle rustler with cattle rustling' network' alleged aired by the defendants; in itself, is prima facie defamatory prior to consideration of defence if any by the defendant as the plaintiff was by then the only serving District Commissioner in Rorya District representing the President of United Republic of Tanzania also as a Chairperson of District Security Committee, the alleged news was therefore capable of defaming the plaintiff. I however find that it was the duty of the plaintiff establish that the news bulletin was as per his complaints and not otherwise. The plaintiff was legally bound to have

proved the facts ·he asserted ?r pleaded in his plaint against the defendants that news broadcasted were as complained or as pleaded and that the same was false or maliciously published. This position of law is provided under section 110, 111 of Tanzania Evidence· Act, Cap 6 R. ·E, 2002 which for sake of clarity I wish to reproduce in extensor; "110 (1) Whoever desires any court'to give judgme~t as to any-legal right or_ liability dependent on ~he existence of facts which he asserts must prove that those facts exist. (2) When a person is bound to prove the existence of any fact, it is . said that the burden of proof lies on that person';.

111. The burden of proof in a suit proceeding lies on that person who would fail if no evidence at all were given on either side. 112 The bu_rden of proof'as to any particulc1r fact lies on that person · . who wishes the court to believe in its existence~ unless it is provided ~t~~ by law that the proof of that fact shall lie on any other person. · . :'V 11 According to the above quoted provisions of the law, it was certainly and . legally found to be the duty of the plaintiff to prove to the standard required that news bulletin broadcasted by the defendants was as complained or pleaded in the plaint and eventually adduced evidence at the trial and not otherwise and therefore defamatory unless the complaint on the complained aired news was admitted by the defendants in their . written statement of defence. The plaintiff was therefore, to my considered view, required prove the. actual neyVs bulletin allegedly broadcasted by the defendant as it was expected of him to produce an extract or audio/video- DVD retrieved from complained news bulletin taking into account of · advancement of technology . In our instant case if I seriously consider the evidence adduced by DW1 and DW3 as well as DW2 and DW4 together with news script produced and admitted as "DE1", which I have undoubtedly considered, there is credible evidence that the headline broadcasted and complained by the plaintiff

is contrary to what the plaintiff and his witnesses had testified. For the inter~st of justice regarding this issue and preferably to be applicable ·in other issues, 'DE1' is here reproduced its verbatim; 13 Oct 2013 Marato,. file - wizi rorya 2013 cuts, wizi rorya Oct 2013 insert Lameck Airo, wizi rorya act 2013 up sound , rorya act 2013 insert - 1 Michael Odede na wizi roeya act 2013 - 2 - .Michaei · Odede Oct 2013. MKUU WA WILAYA YA RORYA MKOANI MARA, AMETUHUMIWA KUSHIRIKI KATIKA MTANDAO WA WIZI WA MIFUG.O WILAYANI HUMO HATUA AMABAYO IMEDAIWA KUMFANY~ KUSHINDWA KUCHUKUA HATUA ZA KUMALIZA WIZI HUO AMBAO MBALI NA KUFILISI MIFUGO YA WANANCHI PIA UMESABISHA MAUAJI YA RAIA WENGI~· BAADA YA MAJAMBA;zI HAO KUFANY~ UPORAJ:i: HUO KWA KUTUMIA SILAHA ZA I i··, . I· ~ MOTO. . . . . . . . . · . . . . 12 KUTOKA WILAYANI RORYA MKOANI MARA, MWANAHABARI WETU GEORGE MARATO , ANAYOTAARIFA ZAIDI.. .............. . .,

TUHUMA HZO NZITO ZIMETOLEWA NA MBUNGE WA JIMBO LA RORYA KUPITIA CHAMA CHA MAPINDUZI CCM MH. LAMECK AIRO WAKIWEMO WANANCHI WA KATA YA BUKWE KATIKA MKUTANO WA HADHARA AMBAO UMEFANTIKA KWENYE KJIJI · CHA BUGANJO WILAYANI RORYA. WAMESEMA UCHA YA MKUU HUYO WA WILAYA AMABAYE NI MWEMYEKITI KAMATI YA ULINZI NA USALAMA WA WILAYA KUPEWA. TAARIFA KUHUSU MTANDAO HUO HATARI WA WIZI WA MIFUGO, LAKINI

AMESHINDWA KUCHUKUA HATUA HUKU AKIONEKANA KUSHIRIKIANA NA WATU Mh Lameck Airo WANATUHUMIWA KUHUSIKA NA WIZI HUO WA . MI FUGO . . . . Mbunge wa jimbo la rorya na Bw. Michael Odede - Msoma Risala kijiji cha buganjo rorya

HATA HIVYO KATIKA MKUTANO HUO ZILIBUKA VURUGU KUBWA BAADA YA

MWENYEKITI WA MOJA YA KITONGOJI WA KIJIJI HICHO KUMVAMIA MTU ALIYEKUWA AKISOMA RISALA YA WANANCHI KWA MADA! YA KUMTUMU KIONGOZI HUYO KUJIHUSIKA NA VITENDO MABALIMBALI VYA UHALIFU, WIZI WA MAHINDI YA MSAADA, KUOMBA NA KUPOKEA RUSHWA KUTOKA KWA WANANCHI, KUENDESHA · SERIKALI KWA MAJUNGU PAMOJA NA KUWADHURUMU FEDHA ZAO ZA RAIA NCHI YA ETHIOPIA WALIONGIA NCHINI KINYUME CHA SHERIA ·············· ............ 1-Insert Michael Odede- msoma risala buganjo. Up sound ya vurugu ................... . NAVE MKUU WA WILAYA YA RORV:A BW ELIAS OLE GOLOI, AKIZUNGUMZA NA ITV KWA NJIA YA SIMU, AMEPINGA KUHU.SIKA KATIKA MTANDAO HUO WA WEZI WA MIFUGO NA KUSEMA AMEKUWA AKIPITA VIJIJINI KWA MADAI YA KUPINGA KAULi YA MBUNGE HUYO .YA KUTAKA WEZI WOTE WA MIFUGO WANAKAMATWA KATIKA

KIJIJI HIVYO WAUWAWE BILA KUFIKISHWA KATIKA VYOMBO VYA SHE RIA ........... mwisho. According to the testimonies. of the reader (DWI) ·of the village report and that of the former chairperson . of Buganjo village . (DW3) without undue regard to evidence adduced by the DW2 it is satisfactory that there were complaints made a_gainst the plaintiff to the Member of Parliament for' Rorya Constituency on 12/10/2017 in the plaintiff's absence to the meeting, main accusation being the plaintiff's inaction to combat the ~ampant cattle theft in the area arid not as_ complained by the plaintiff that it was aired ir:i the ITV that he was a cattle rustler with cattl~ rustl.ing ~ . ·- network. VIJIi/iv 13 nd Regarding the 2 issue "whether the broadcasted news / neV\fS . bulletin complained was/ is true" It is plainly found from the evidence adduced by both sides that there is no contention between the parties in it was the 2 nd defendant who collected the news, edited and then caused it to be aired and the 1st defendant is the one who received thesame and .aired it through television, thus, this issue of broadcasting accusation against the PW1 is found to be in affirmative or rather to have been . admitted by the defence (defendants), both in the joint pleadings as well as during trial. However it is contentious as to which news bulletin was aired between the two; 'the plaintiff was a cattle

rustler with cattle rustling network' as complained by the plaintiff or that 'the plaintiff was accused of being a cattle rustler with cattle rustlers' network as contended by the defendants, as,was found in the determination of 1st issue herein. In the 3 rd issue 'Whether the broadcasting of the news bulletin . .complained of was maliciously done', the 1st defendant is a undoubtedly an entity carrying on media business and othe·r related business and the one who glarin.gly aired the complained news bulletin though not in the exactly context alleged by the plaintiff and it also not in dispute ,that the 2nd defendant (DW2), an agent of the 1st defendant was the one who attended the meeting chaired by the Rory Constituency MP at Buganjo Village-Bukwe Ward, collected the news, sent it to the 1st defendantfor broadcasting/ for publication. Issue of controversy is whether~ _they mal1c1ously published the news. . · . . _ .· ·· Y 14 In Williamson diamonds ltd and another v Brown [1970] 1 EA 1 ·) "In considering the question of malice, the court should enquire ) whether the publication was done in the reasonable and necessary protection of the defendant; any defamatory statements, made by a person whose character or conduct has been attacked, will be privileged provided they are published bona fide and are fairly relevant to the accusation made; the defendant will be protected even

though his language should be yiolent or excessively strong" Also in Rwekanika-v Binamungu (1974) 1 EA 388, this court emphasized presence of malice on the part of a maker of the statemen~ complained · was necessary and that the same ought to be proved by the plaintiff and proceeded holding that Information given to the police in order to detect crime is privileged. Back to present case, the plaintiff made efforts to impliedly testify that the 2nd defendant's failure to attend the press conference held on 14/10/2013, prepared by him (plaintiff) despite the f~ct that he sent him T_shs. 40, 000/ as a faire from Musoma to Rorya and vice versa so that he could attend the conference aimed at denouncement of the news bulietin in the same channel of news broadcasted by the defendants and failure to reply to the allegedly sent demand letter (PE1) by the 1st defendant. But when I carefully evaluate at this type of evidence adduced by the plaintiff, I unhesitatingly find the same not convincing to justify this court to justly and fairly hold that the malice on the part of the defendants had been proved as the faire allegedly Qiven to the 2"d defendarlt is disputed and n o ~ 15 proof on that fact except mere assertion moreover the demand letter (PEl) ....f'l is not dated and therefore not reliable . ')i. '\,;'_. ) As to the 4 th issue, 'whether the defendants have any defence~ ( qualified

privileged or fair comment on matter of public interest), I am mindful of defences available in torts of defamation, namely, absolute · privilege, qualified privilege, fair and bonafide comments. During trial the DW2 testified that he reported what he gathered from the meeting and that the news gathered f_rom the meeting was sent to the 1st defendant and broadcasted after communication being made between the PWl and . . him (DW2) as depicted in the 'DE1' above. The DW4 also said that the news sent to him by the DW2 was reportable as the plaintiff was given an opportunity and other hand it the plaintiff's testimony that he was not consulted on the accusation till when he saw the . . same (news bulletin) . while watching I1V on the material date . and time. In other words the defendants vividly bolstered to show that that they were privileged to publish the complained news. In I. S. Msangi v. Jumuiya ya Wafanyakazi ~nd worker Development Corperation_ (1992) TLR 259-CAT "Where a person ra_ises a defence of qualified privilege on the _ground that he had a duty to make the offending statements it must further be shown that the statement was made in good faith and that the person to whom it was made had corresponding interest and duty to receive it: ... :.Publication to the members of KUBK when they were ~ · not supposed to receive it, it was wrong". · · . · 16 Prbfessor I. Upumba v.

Zuberi Juma Mzee (2004) TLR 381, Court Tanzania where a duty to substantiate the accuracy or otherwise of the rumors that the maker of the complained words had heard was casted to the defendant. In this case before this court, there is ample evidence that the words aired by the defendants were the ones uttered by the meeting attendants to their Member of Parliament as sufficiently adduced by the DWl and DW3 supported by the documen.tary evidence, news bulletin ([;>El). It is further testified by the DW2 and DW4 news complained was balanced since the plaintiff was given an opportunity to respon~ to the accusation leveled against him. According to the evidence so adduced by both sides, it is quite dear that the matters discussed were conspicuously matters of public nature and for the public information, including bare accusatio~ against the plaintiff notwithstanding his official status. Freedom of expression is a const!tutional right of every citizen, article 18 of. the Constitution of United Republic of Tanzania provides; (1) Bila ya kuathiri sheria za nchi, kila mtu yuko huru kuwa na maoni yoyote na kutoa nje mawazo . yake, na kutafuta, kupokea . . . na kutoa habari ria dhana zozote kupitia chombo chochote bila ya kujali mipaka ya nchi, na pia ana uhuru wa kutoingiliwa kati ~ . """'g 0 mawasiliano yake. . · . 17 (2) Kila raia anayo haki ya kupewa taarifa wakati wote

kuhusu matukio mbalimbali nchini na duniani kote ambayo ni muhimu kwa maisha na shughuli za wananchi, na pia juu ya The constitutional Swahili version de~otes that every citizen has right to freedom opinion and expression, seek, receive and impart or disseminate information and ideas to any media and that every citizen has the right to be informed all the times of the various events. As far as the evidence adduced and ·on this court record is concern, it can be easily observed that the meeting attendants exercised their right to imparttheir suspicious·information of lack of confid~nce with their District Commissioner regarding his inaction actions towards anticipated combating of cattle rustlers, particularly when suspects' names are mentioned and· those mentioned arrested, in the presence of various media reporters, the nd 2 defendant inclusive. R~ciprocally the reporters were to dissemina_te such accusation made at the gather to the members of public who have their constitutional under Sub-Article (2) of Article 18 of our Constitution, (Cap 2 of R: E, 2002) As public leaders /officials should avoid being onfy anxious of being reported by media of good acts done by themselves or their subordinates but also they should be patient and willing to hear-when mere or serious complaints or suspicions made towards their acts done in their official cap~cities and those of their

respective subordinates unless the contrary i s ~ exh1b1ted. · . · "8 18. .. ... However the constitutional right to expression has its necessary limits for instance if complained defamatory words were actuated by malice or false or matters endangering interest of the community (See case of Astus Njale Masule and Samson Mipaw~ Molla v. Dogan lunala (2002) TLR 197 as well as persuasive judicial authorities in the case of Shah v. Uganda Argus (1972) EA 80 and Rangarajan v Jagjivan Ram and· others [1990] LRC). A publication of defama~ory statement being one which injures the. reputation of another by exposing him or her to hatred, contempt, or ridicule, or _which tends to lower him or her in the est~em of right-thinking members of society such publication therefore ought to be sufficiently proved taking into account on the other hand that people have also fundamental right to information in accordance with the law contrary to what is found in the present case as indicated herein above. In the final event, the plaintiff's case stands dismissed, considering the current health status of the plaintiff (total blindness), I unhesitatingly make no order as to costs of this-case. It is so ordered. ~ . M.,~.'~ Judge 24/08/2017 . 19 Right of appeal explained fully. M~ Judge 24/08/2017 20