Search judgments by proposition, citation, court, judge or legal topic, then move directly into the source-grounded case analysis.
Results update automatically as you type.
Tanzania decisions
Decisions matching the current search
The suit was not properly instituted as required by Rule 4(1) of the Media Services (Defamation Proceedings) Rules, rendering the trial court's proceedings and orders a nullity.
Source excerpt
The petition was served outside the prescribed seven-day period after issuance of summons, and the petitioner failed to file an affidavit explaining the delay as required by Rule 5(3) of the Media Services (Defamation Proceedings) Rules, 2019. The petition is incompetent and must be struck out.
Source excerpt
The trial court's omission to record assessors' qualifications was not fatal; the court had pecuniary jurisdiction based on the pleaded claim; the publication was defamatory in its plain and ordinary meaning; the respondent suffered damages; the trial judge obtained and considered assessors' opinions; however, the trial judge erred by considering inflation, which was not pleaded or evidenced, in assessing damages. The award was reduced to the amount pleaded and proved.
Source excerpt
The petition was improperly instituted as the alleged defamation was by utterance and not publication through media; therefore, the proper procedure was to file a plaint under the Civil Procedure Code, not a petition under the Media Services Act and Rules.
Source excerpt
The High Court found online video content defamatory, false, malicious, and unprivileged, and awarded the petitioner damages, apology, retraction, and injunction.
The High Court allowed a defamation appeal, holding the trial suit incompetent because it was filed by plaint instead of the required Form DP petition.
The High Court allowed a defamation appeal, finding the respondent failed to prove the broadcasted defamatory words and that material evidence was not produced.
The High Court held that a defamation claim based on a tribunal publication was barred by absolute privilege under the Media Services Act and dismissed the suit for lack of jurisdiction.
The Respondents published false and unsubstantiated statements about the Petitioner, which were defamatory, intentional, malicious, and not justified or privileged. The Respondents failed to provide evidence supporting the truth of their allegations or to offer the Petitioner a right of reply. The publications caused significant harm to the Petitioner's reputation and emotional well-being, warranting substantial compensatory and general damages, an apology, and an injunction against further defamatory publications.
Source excerpt
The 1st respondent uttered false and defamatory statements about the petitioner, which were published by the 2nd and 6th respondents without balancing the story or seeking the petitioner’s response, thereby maliciously damaging his reputation. The petitioner failed to prove special damages but is entitled to general damages and a public apology.
Source excerpt
Explore more
