nzaro nuhu kachenje vs commercial bank of africa 2021 tzhc 9243 12 october 2021

IN THE HIGH COURT OF TANZANIA (DAR ES SALAAM DISTRICT REGISTRY) AT DAR ES SALAAM CIVIL CASE NO. 183 OF 2016 NZARO NUHU KACHENJE......... .... ..... PLAINTIFF VERSUS COMMERCIAL BANK OF AFRICA(TANZANIA) LTD....... ....... .... DEFENDANT JUDGMENT Date o f last order: 25/03/2021 Date o fJudgment: 12/10/2021 S.M. KULITA, J. It is alleged that on the 4th day of November, 2014 the plaintiff herein namely NZARO NUHU KACHENJE who was the Head of Legal and Special Assets for the Defendant namely COMMERCIAL BANK OF AFRICA(TANZANIA) LTD gave a resignation notice to the Defendant who was his employee. That, immediately after the Plaintiff's resignation the Defendant authored and published notices to the public through the public newspapers that the Plaintiff is no longer their employee with effect from 5th December, 2014. That he is not allowed to conduct any business transaction in the name of the Defendant, and that the Bank will not be liable for any dealings made by him purported to be done on behalf of the bank. Alleging that the said advertisements are offensive against him, the plaintiff lodged this matter against the Defendant claiming for the following reliefs; (a) An order for retraction of the public notices complained of. (b) An order for unconditional apology to the Plaintiff and publication of the said apology in the same manner. (c) An order of permanent restraining the Defendant, its agents, assignees, employees and/or servant or any person working on the Defendant's behalf from repeating similar or making any other publications regarding the Plaintiff. (d) A declaration that the Plaintiff's loan with the Defendant is fully discharged because of the Defendant's intentional and malicious actions that have adversely affected the Plaintiff's financial ability to repay the loan. (e) An order restraining the Defendant its agents, assignees, employees and/or servant or any person working on the Defendant's behalf from initiating any recovery measures of the loan against the plaintiff. (f) An order restraining the Defendant, its agents, assignees, employees and/or servant or any person working on the Defendant's behalf from enlisting the Plaintiff to any credit reference Bureau or Agency. (g) Payment of Specific Damages to the tune of USD 768,000 for the reasons pleaded in paragraphs 21, 22, 23 and 34 of the plaint. (h) Payment of General Damages in an amount to be assessed by the court but in excess of Tsh. 1.8 billion shillings. (i) Payment of Exemplary Damages in excess of Tsh. 500,000,000/= for the reasons pleaded in paragraph 33 of the plaint. (]) Interest on decretal sum at the court rate of 12% per annum from the date of judgment till full and final payment. (k) Costs of the suit and Interest thereon at the court rate of 12% from the date of judgment until full and final payment (I) Any other relief(s) the court may deem fit and proper to grant in the circumstances. The Plaintiff is represented by Mr. Michael J.T. Ngalo, Learned Counsel from Ngalo and Company Advocates while the Defendant is represented by Dr. Onesmo Kyauke, Learned Counsel from Locus Attorneys. A total number of five witnesses testified for the Plaintiff's case while the Defence side called one witness. The 1st witness for the Plaintiff's case one NZARO KACHENJE (PW1) who is also the plaintiff in this matter testified that he is an Advocate practising in his firm namely Kachenje Advocate. He was enrolled in 2012. He is a holder of the 1st Degree in Law awarded by Tumaini University in 2008. He said that he was employed by the United Bank of Africa, currently known as Commercial Bank of Africa. He was appointed a Manager in the Special Assets Department. In 2009 he was promoted to be a Manager for Legal and Special Assets Recovery Department. Thereat he was also dealing with compliance issues. He was to ensure that the bank complies with laws, rules and regulations in performing its duties. He was also an adviser of the bank on all legal aspects like contracts, employment and recovery of loans. The witness stated that in 2012 he became Head of Legal and Special Assets Management. At that said time he started to attend Board meetings as a company Secretary. He held that position up to 4th December, 2014 following his resignation which was accepted by the Defendant. He said that by that time he had set his private practise. PW1 tendered to court his Resignation letter and its acceptance from the Defendant. They were received and admitted as Exhibits PI and P2 respectively. PW1 said that he started practising advocacy at his office located on Plot No. 501 along Kalenga Street, Upanga in Dar es Salaam where he had two Advocates, two Legal Officers and two Administrative Officers. The witness stated that the source of complaint against the Defendant is the publication of notices in the public newspaper in which the Defendant informed the public about his resignation and warned them not to deal with him on matters involving the bank (defendant). He said that those publications were made in various newspaper, to wit Daily News, The Guardian, The Citizen, Mwananchi and Nipashe in January, 2015. PW1 showed the pages with the said publications in the said newspapers, he then tendered to court those said newspapers. The same were received and admitted as Exhibits and marked as follows; Daily News two pieces (P3 and P4), The Guardian two pieces (P5 and P6) and Nipashe two pieces (P7 and P8). PW1 said that the message carries innuendo that he was of a character that he could continue to transact the purportedly on behalf of the bank despite his resignation. Therefore, the public were being warned. However, PW1 stated that he never purported to act on behalf of the bank at any time after resignation. He said that even the bank never contacted him on anything prior to the issuance of the publication. It is the testimony of PW1 that he worked for the bank for eight years and during that time there were employees who had resigned or their contract were terminated without being publicized. He further stated that the said publications of his name brought a lot of tension to the public. His family and friends were interested to know the reason for the publication and why to that great frequency. It was made for a whole week from Monday. It has his picture/photo and the said warning to the public that they should not transact with him when he purports to do so on behalf of the defendant. The witness testified that his family, including his father, mother, sisters and brothers came across these publications. He said that their frequent queries caused a lot of stress, humiliation and psychological torment to him. He further stated that his late father, Nuhu Kachenje was eager to know why the plaintiff still wanted to transact for the bank while he has resigned. His assumption about him therefore, is that he was dishonest person. PW1 alleged that the said publication affected his professional carrier. He said that early after starting his private practise he recruited some clients like H.H. Hillal & Co. Ltd, Imperial Construction Co. Ltd, ERV East Africa (PTY) Ltd, Coastal Energy Solutions Ltd and Superior Financing Solutions Ltd. PW1 said that they signed the retainer agreement with these companies for provision of legal services and the said clients paid his law firm on monthly basis. He tendered to court the said retainership agreements. They were received and admitted as Exh. P9. PW1 said that following the said publications four companies terminated their contracts with his firm. He mentioned those companies being H.H. Hillal & Co. Ltd, Prestige Developers Group Ltd, ERV East Africa (PTY) Ltd and Coastal Energy Solutions Ltd. The witness said that these companies sent the letters to him through e-mail and other means to declare the said terminations. The letter issued by H.H. Hillal & Co. Ltd was rejected under section 18 of the Electronic Transaction Act for being in a form of e-mail without being accompanied with the affidavit. As for the other letters they were received and collectively marked as Exhibit P10 collectively. PW1 stated that the reason for the termination is the doubt that those companies had perceived on the plaintiff's reputation and credibility after the publications made by the defendant. He said that his business and reputation lowered just a month after publication whereby those said companies terminated the contract with him. He said that, thereafter other terminations followed. The witness further stated that he suffered a lot to the extent of failing to maintain his law firm. He said that the act generally tortured his mind. He decided to consult the Advocate and they agreed to issue a demand note (Exh. P ll) to the defendant requesting for retraction apology and damages. He said that the Defendant never complied the said demand note, hence the plaintiff filed this suit. 8 As a victim for the matter, PW1 prays for the court to award him General Damages for the torture and sufferings he has got for this issue. He also seeks for the Special Damages at the tune of USD 768,000 for the loss of income that he could have acquired through the retainership contracts, if the defendant had not made those defamatory publications against him. The witness also claims for exemplary/punitive damages as the defendant's actions tainted with malice aiming to demolish his character, hence should be punished as a threat for not repeating the same. The Plaintiff also claims for the other remedies prayed in the plaint to be granted. He insisted that the matter is pure defamation by innuendo against him. He concluded by praying the court to decide for the Plaintiff, costs being inclusive. The 2nd witness for the Plaintiff one HILLAL HAMAD HILLAL (PW2) testified that he is a businessman holding a school namely Savannah Plains at Shinyanga under the company namely Hillal Education Centre Limited holden by him. The witness stated that he also deals with mining business at Mwadui Shinyanga through his other company namely Al Hillal Minerals Limited. As well, PW2 conducts the fuel (petroleum products) business through Fantum Oil Tanzania Limited. As for the matter at hand the witness stated that he came to know Nzaro Nuhu Kachenje (PW1) in 2014 through his mother namely Stella Kachenje. Having been so introduced to PW1 the witness met him and they entered into a contract (Exh. P9) that PW1 would be providing the legal services for his companies for a consideration of USD 4,500 per month. PW2 said that before they had started to perform the said contract, he did receive the information from his assistants that there was a public notice in the public newspapers that Nzaro Nuhu Kachenje (PW1) is untrustworthy. He went through some of the said newspapers including Daily News dated 20/1/2015 at page 9, and another Daily News dated 23/1/2015 at page 15 and satisfied himself on the said publications. He said that the said publications gave him some doubts on the trustworthiness of PW1. He therefore decided to terminate the contract of legal service from him. He wrote a letter (notice of termination) to him on 25/1/2015. He was shown the said notice/letter (Exh. P10) and identified it. PW2 was also shown the said two public newspapers and identified them. He later on read the relevant notices which also consist the PWl's photos. He said that he was in worry that he could not be entrusted and respected whenever he goes to work for his companies which has a lot of employees, about 300 in number. 10 PW2 said that Nzaro Nuhu Kachenje tried to explain him about the matter but he was not satisfied with his answer that he had not done anything wrong against the Bank. He just regarded him not a clean person. PW3 one Abdallah Singano who is a Public Relation and Marketing Officer for Abstract Limited company of Msasani Dar es Salaam stated that his office deals with Consultation and advisory services to different companies. It is his company, he established it in 2014. Before that he was an employee of Vodacom. PW3 said that in 2007 he was employed by the Commercial Bank of Africa where he used to work as a Marketing and Product Development Officer for two years before he had terminated the contract and joined with Stanbic Bank in 2009. PW3 stated that he knows Nzaro Nuhu Kachenje (PWl/Plaintiff) and that by the time he was resigning at the Commercial Bank of Africa (Defendant) in 2007, the said person (PW1) was still working with the said Defendant. The witness stated that he came to know about resignation of the Plaintiff through the public newspapers. PW3 was shown Exhibits P3 to P8 and identified them being the newspapers that he had read about the said public notices. ii Upon reading the notice at page 6 of Exh. P6 (The Guardian newspaper) dated 25/1/2015 the witness stated that the notice indicates that Nzaro Nuhu Kachenje is dishonest person, that he might have engaged himself in illegal business under the umbrella of the bank while he was no longer their employee, that's why the last part of the notice states that the bank wont be responsible for any act that will be done by the Plaintiff on behalf of the bank. He said that such kind of publications are used to be made for the employees whose employments have been terminated in connection with their wrongful acts against the employer. He said that such kind of publication can make the public to regard the intended person untrustworthy. PW3 stated that by the time he was resigning there was no public notice issued for his resignation. PW3 further stated that upon asking him (PW1) about the said publication Nzaro Nuhu Kachenje said that he had terminated the contract at his own wishes. PW3 said that he didn't trust that PWl's statement. He believed that he wasn't telling the truth, otherwise the Defendant had intended to defame him. WILLIAM JOSEPH MUNGAI (PW4), said that he is a Businessman holding a hotel namely Baobab Apartment and Hotel located along Mwai Kibaki Road in Dar es Salaam. He said that he ever 12 been an employee for the Commercial Bank of Africa between August, 2011 and October, 2014. He was the head of Personal Banking. He said that while he was employed Nzaro Nuhu Kachenje was one of the employees, he was the Head of Legal Department. PW4 said that while he was resigning Nzaro Nuhu Kachenje was still working with the Commercial Bank of Africa. PW4 stated that he came to note that the Plaintiff is no longer the employee of the Commercial Bank of Africa when he read it in the public newspapers namely Mwananchi, The Citizen and The Guardian. He said that apart from the wordings that he is no longer the employee for the bank the said published notices have the said bank's logo and the plaintiff's photo. He was shown the newspapers which were marked as Exhibits P3 to P8 and identified them. PW4 further stated that, in the notice the public has been alerted that the bank won't be responsible for the matters that will be attended by the plaintiff on behalf of the bank which means that he is untrustworthy. However, the plaintiff told PW4 that he had never done anything wrong against the defendant during nor after termination of the contract. 13 Mr. Mungai stated that before he retired, he was among the senior officers in the bank, he said that only the persons who had been expelled from job for theft or other crimes are the ones who had been publicised in the public newspapers. It was not done for the staffs who resign at their own wish like the plaintiff. He said that he had resigned from the same bank in 2014 but he was not publicized. He said that the said publication must have lowered the plaintiff's reputation in the public and hence affect his advocacy business. STELLA NUHU KACHENJE who testified as PW5 stated she is an Advocate by occupation. He said that Nzaro Nuhu Kachenje is her son and he is the Advocate as well. She said that her son was working with the Commercial Bank of Africa where he resigned in 2014 for the purposes of running his own advocacy office namely Kachenje Advocates. The office started in 2015. PW5 said that she assisted the plaintiff by finding customers for him and among the customers she succeeded to get is one Hillal Hillal who holds the company namely Phantom found in Dar es Salaam. PW5 further stated that after the resignation of Nzaro (plaintiff) she saw public newspapers with the notices authored by the Defendant stating that the Plaintiff is no longer their staff and that the bank won't be responsible for any task that will be done 14 by him in the name of the bank. The said notices in Mwananchi newspapers dated 20/1/2015 at page 2, Daily News dated 20/5/2015 at page 9 and The Guardian dated 19/1/2015 at page 3 were shown to PW5 and she identified them. Each notice has the plaintiff's photo. PW5 said that she did see those notices through whatsapp messages that were sent to her by her boss. The witness further stated that she was shocked and started to blame the Plaintiff that he is not trustworthy. She wanted to know from him as to what had happened. Nzaro told her that apart from resigning he has not done anything wrong against the defendant. It is the PW5's testimony that Nzaro was actually shocked as most of the companies which he had entered contract with, for the legal services like Hillal Hillal terminated their contracts with Nzaro while those which were still in progress abandoned. PW5 said that the Plaintiff was depressed in such a way that his relatives had to find a psychologist for him. He stayed at home for about two weeks without going to the office. That was the end of Plaintiff's case which consists a total number of five witnesses. 15 The Defence witness one LILIAN MNDEME (DW1) who is a Lawyer by profession working with the Commercial Bank of Africa stated that she joined the said bank in August, 2014 and that she knows Nzaro Nuhu Kachenje since that time as he was her fellow staff. She said that he was her boss as the Head for Legal and Special Assets Management. She further said that the records transpire that he has been in that post since 2012. The witness further stated that the plaintiff's duties involved conducting legal activities for the bank and dealing with stake holders like brokers and collection of debts from borrowers. He was also dealing with taking legal actions, like attachment of assets, against the customers who default to settle the loans. As for the debt collection the Plaintiff used to hear debtors and receive their proposals as to how they could settle their debts. Generally, he had powers to deal with external lawyers, auctioneers and some customers whose numbers exceeds 100. DW1 said that in November, 2014 Nzaro Nuhu Kachenje issued the 24 hours resignation notice from the Commercial Bank of Africa. He said that, after submission of the resignation letter, the Plaintiff never turned up to the office, hence no handing over was done. It was therefore difficult for the office to handle the customers who were directly attended by him. It took a great 16 trouble to harmonize the matters with those customers. The bank's relationship with those customers became worse. DW1 stated that some customers continued to communicate with Nzaro while he was no longer their employee. Actually, it was difficult to adjust the situation. As the bank continued to receive the complaints continuously, they decided to put the issue of Nzaro's resignation in the public newspapers. It was a simple way of enabling majority to know the situation that Nzaro was no longer with the Commercial Bank of Africa. DW1 was shown the public notice in The Guardian newspaper (exh. P6) and stated that it has no any element of dishonest or untrust to the Plaintiff. She added that it has no intention to defame the plaintiff but informing the public that Nzaro Nuhu Kachenje was no longer the employee of Commercial Bank of Africa, the defendant. That could not only clear the doubts from the public particularly the customers, but also reduced excuses from the evil customers who fails to clear their deficit for the excuse of absence of Nzaro in the office. DW1 stated that paragraph 2 of the notice clarifies that any complaint with connection to Nzaro that would follow after the notice would not be accepted. She said that, as well they had to publicized as the bank had started to receive some complaint that 17 their e-mails through Nzaro were not replied. She said that from the date of resignation to the date of publication of the notices, it took about three months. DW1 said that another reason for publication is that the plaintiff had different powers as compared to the other staffs who had resigned before and after the Plaintiff. She stated that the Plaintiff was alone in that task of dealing closely with the said external stake-holders and some other customers, like borrowers. It is the testimony of DW1 that after the resignation of Nzaro the post of Head for Special Assets Management section was removed due to the chaos that they had faced. That situation plus the fact that all officers who resigned subsequent to the resignation of Nzaro handled over the office to their successors, there were no need of making publications. DW1 concluded that the publication had no any element of inuendo. It had no intention to defame the plaintiff but to notify the public that the plaintiff is no longer their employee, hence they should not make any bank business (transaction) with him. She said that the plaintiff's allegations that his business has been affected and that he has been neglected, cannot be true and it has no connection with the notice of publication that the 18 defendant had made. DW1 further stated that, however, after the plaintiff had filed this case, the defendant had to refrain from publishing the resignations so to avoid floodgate of litigations. DW1 concluded that the bank cannot retract the publication because the same justifies the truth. As for the issue of servicing the loan that he had taken from the Plaintiff, DW1 said that it is a different subject, it has no connection with the matter at hand. She added that the exemplary damages sought by the plaintiff cannot be awarded as the bank was exercising its emergence duties to avoid loss and chaos to its customers. She prays for the court to dismiss the case in its entirely, with costs. From the evidence that have been adduced by both parties, the following issues are going to be determined; 1. Whether the publications are defamatory. 2. If the 1st issue is answered in affirmative, whether the defendant was activated by malice. 3. To what relief(s) are the parties entitled. The 1st issue, Whether the publications are defamatory is hereby analysed as hereunder; It was averred by the Plaintiff that having resigned as her (defendant's) employee, the Defendant published the notices of 19 which the plaintiff alleged to be defamatory. The notices which were published in English language read; "This is to inform the general pubiic and our esteemed clients that Mr: Nzaro Kachenje is no longer an employee o f Commercial Bank o f Africa (Tanzania) Limited with effect from 5th December, 2014. In this regard, he is notallowed to conduct any business transaction in the name o f commercial Bank o fAfrica (Tanzania) Limited" In the Swahili newspapers the said publication was read; "Hii n i kuutaarifu umma na wateja wetu ya kwamba Nd. Nzaro Kachenje, ambaye picha yake iko hapo juu, si mfanyakazi tena wa Commercial Bank o f Africa (Tanzania) Limited kuanzia mnamo tarehe 5/12/2014. Kwa mantiki hiyo ndugu Kachenje haruhusiwi kufanya biashara kwa niaba ya Commercial Bank o f Africa (Tanzania) Limited. Commercial Bank o f Africa (Tanzania) Limited haitohusika kwa namna yoyote i/e katika masua/a ya kibiashara atakayofanya kwa niaba yetu" The Plaintiff averred that some senior Management officers of the Defendant resigned from employment before and after the 20 Plaintiff's resignation but were never published. He further averred that as a result of the publication he suffered damages. On the other hand, the Defendant averred that since the Plaintiff was dealing with third parties on behalf of the Bank, it was necessary for the bank to inform the general public about the Plaintiff's resignation so as to avoid liabilities which could have arisen. It was further averred that there was nothing in the publication that portrayed the Plaintiff as a dishonest and untruthful person as alleged. The Defendant insisted that the public notices were not defamatory and therefore, they were not capable of causing any damage to the Plaintiff. We shall be in a good position in analysing this matter by starting with defining the term defamation which is a core subject for the matter at hand. Defamation means publication of a statement which tends to lower a person in estimation of right-thinking members of the society. For clarification the said statement must be false and tends to injure the reputation of another person without any lawful justification or excuse. According to Rogers, M.A: Winfield and Jolowicz on Tort, London - Sweet & Maxwell, 2002 at Page 404 Defamation has been defined as the publication of a statement which reflects 21 !» on a person's reputation and tends to lower him in the estimation of right - thinking members of the society generally or tends to make them shun or avoid him. It is the testimony of the Defendant's witness (DW1) that the Defendant was only informing the general public that the Plaintiff was no longer its employee and, therefore, no transaction should be made in his name. However, according to the plaintiffs pleadings and evidence adduced the words as used in the publication are not defamatory in their ordinary and natural meaning but they are defamatory by innuendo. The Plaintiff is pleading innuendo, but for defamation by innuendo to succeed, it is not about how the general public or recipients of the publication would understand, but it must be proved that the recipients possessed knowledge of the matter prior to publication of the offensive words. See the Kenyan case namely Nation Newspapers Ltd v. Lydia Chesire (1984) eKLR. Defamation by innuendo \x\ this matter should fail as there is no evidence on record to the effect that extrinsic facts (special circumstances) were known to persons who read the publication. Furthermore, even if the publication was defamatory, defense of qualified privilege would be available to the Defendant. It 22 means the Defendant made the statementJust for precaution purpose or self-defense, not for defaming somebody. DW1, clearly testified that, it was necessary on the part of the Defendant to make the publications because the Plaintiff who was the Defendant's agent was dealing with third parties who were auctioneers, external lawyers, borrowers etc. Since those third parties were not aware of the Plaintiff's resignation and there was no more efficient means to inform them other than publication. It is the opine of this court that under the law of agency, the Defendant was duty bound to give such reasonable notices to the general public about termination of the agency so as avoid any liability that could have arisen. In the case of Novati Joseph and Another V. Sebastian Muzo (1978) LRT No. 14, it was held that where a person is under a moral or social duty to make certain statement and does make statements which appear to be defamatory, the defense of qualified privilege would be available provided that such statements are made without malice. The defense of qualified privilege, as expounded by Lord Fisher in the case of Hunt v. Great North Railway Company (1891) 2 Q.B. 189 which was cited with approval by the Court of Appeal of Tanzania in Board of Internal Trade v. Yonah Mapenzi 23 (1998) TLR 306, his Lordships had the following to say at page 191; "A privilege occasion - arises if the communication is o f such a nature that it could be fairiy said that those who made it had an interest in making such communication and those to whom it was made had a corresponding interest in having it made to them - when these two things co-exist, the occasion is a privileged one. In other words, there must be a reciprocity o f interest" For the matter at hand, since the reciprocity of interest between the Defendant and defendant's vendors was complete, I can agree with the Defense witness (DW1) that the Defendant was \ right to inform third parties who were dealing with the Plaintiff that the Plaintiff was no longer its employee, so the defendant's vendors who were dealing with the Plaintiff were supposed to deal with the Defendant directly. As rightly testified by DW1 that the defendant had intended to avoid possible liabilities that could have arisen thereafter. Hence, even if statement would be taken as defamatory by innuendo, still the defense o f privilege is available to the Defendant. In upshot the publication was not defamatory. The second issue, whether the Defendant was actuated with malice, is hereby analyzed as follows; in an attempt to prove malice, PW1 testified that several employees resigned from the Defendant's employment before and after the Plaintiff's resignation but no one was published in newspapers. On the other hand, DW1 in her testimony explained why the Plaintiff's case was so special. She testified that the Plaintiff was dealing with so many vendors who were supposed to be notified about the Plaintiff's resignation and that he was the first one to serve as Head of Legal and Special Assets Management, a person who had different powers as compared to the other staffs who had resigned before and after him. She further stated that the Plaintiff was alone in that task of dealing closely with the external stake­ holders and some other customers like borrowers. As per the DWl's testimony there was no employee who occupied that position before the Plaintiff. According to DWI the circumstances that led to publication of the Plaintiff's resignation were different from those of other employees who had resigned before and after the Plaintiff. Those other employees were not dealing directly with the third parties as the Plaintiff used to do. In my view these grounds are 25 reasonable for the publication of the Plaintiff's resignation in the public newspapers. According to the Defense witness (DW1), after the Plaintiff's resignation, the defendant learned and made some changes to ensure that the challenges would not recur. What the Defendant did, according to DW1 is to remove the portfolio of Special Assets Management from the Head of Legal Department so that there could be no person to occupy the Plaintiff's position and monopolize the powers after his resignation. The defendant also ensured that all communication between the Plaintiff's successors involve other employees so that in the event of resignation, the defendant would not face a similar problem. It is also the righteous testimony of the DW1 that after the plaintiff had filed this case, the defendant had to refrain from publishing the resignations so to avoid floodgate of litigations. . The fact that these reasonable actions followed immediately after the chaos that the bank had faced regarding resignation of the Plaintiff, the allegation that the Defendant was actuated with malice cannot stand. The Plaintiff tried to show that he lost friends, even if that real happened there is no proof that the alleged publication is the 26 source. There is no nexus whatsoever between termination of relationship with client and the publication. The publication does not say anything about the Plaintiffs integrity or competence. Again, no pleadings or evidence adduced to prove that the clients and/or friends were aware of the Plaintiff-defendant relationship so as to interpret the publication to mean the Plaintiff was not honesty or was fraudulent. Under normal circumstances, no reasonable client would have terminated his contractual relationship with the Plaintiff by merely reading such like publication. If at all there was any termination of contract as alleged, that could not said to have been caused by the said publications. From the above analysis, I find the Plaintiff has failed to prove his case against the Defendant, consequently the suit is hereby 27