Automated Summary
Key Facts
The case involves Devota Mathew Minja, a Member of Parliament (Women Special Seats), suing Global Publishers Corporation Limited, Executive Editor Risasi of 'Mchanganikiko' Newspaper, and Flint Graphics Limited for defamation by innuendo published in an issue from November 25th to 27th, 2015. The plaintiff claims the publication damaged her reputation and seeks an unconditional apology, retraction, Tshs. 200,000,000 in punitive and general damages, interest, and costs. The defendants raised preliminary objections arguing the High Court lacked jurisdiction, no cause of action was established, and the entities sued did not exist. The court ruled that defamation claims do not require pleading specific damages, affirming the High Court's jurisdiction under the Newspaper Act and common law principles. However, the case was transferred to the Resident Magistrates' Court of Dar es Salaam under section 13 of the Civil Procedure Code, as the court determined a lower court was appropriate for the matter. The ruling was delivered on February 9, 2017.
Issues
- The court considered the jurisdictional basis for the High Court to hear the defamation case under the Newspaper Act and Civil Procedure Code. The first defendant objected, citing section 13 of the Civil Procedure Code which requires specific damages for jurisdiction. The court analyzed common law principles in defamation (libel vs. slander) and noted that plaintiffs in libel cases are not obligated to plead special damages. It concluded that the High Court has jurisdiction for defamation claims but transferred the case to the Resident Magistrates' Court for procedural fairness.
- The third defendant objected that the suit was filed against non-existent entities. The court required the plaintiff to prove the defendants' legal existence, referencing case law. The plaintiff's counsel argued the plaint included a valid individual advocate's signature, and the court allowed the case to proceed on this point but deferred final determination to the subordinate court.
Holdings
- The second preliminary objection was abandoned by the defendants, so it was not addressed by the court. The defendants' counsel withdrew this point during proceedings.
- The court overruled the first preliminary objection, determining that in defamation cases by libel, the plaintiff is not required to plead specific damages to establish jurisdiction. This is based on common law principles and precedents cited by the plaintiff's counsel, including the exception for libel cases where nominal damages are awarded without proof of specific loss.
- The court addressed the third objection regarding the law firm filing the suit and found that the plaint was properly signed by an individual advocate. However, the matter was transferred to the Resident Magistrates' Court for further proceedings, with the plaintiff given the option to refile in Morogoro. The court confirmed the existence of the sued entities and upheld the validity of the filing.
Remedies
- The plaintiff may withdraw the case and refile it in another competent court in the Morogoro Region if desired.
- Parties are ordered to bear their own costs in addressing the preliminary points of objection.
- The 1st and 2nd defendants are permitted to maintain their preliminary objections if they choose to address them before the subordinate court.
- All proceedings except the plaint are expunged from the record in the interest of justice.
- The matter is transferred to the Resident Magistrates' Court of Dar es Salaam at Kisutu under sections 95 and 21(1)(a) of the Civil Procedure Code. The plaintiff is granted the liberty to withdraw and refile the suit in any other court of equal grade and competency in the Morogoro Region.
Legal Principles
The court applied the common law principle that in defamation cases based on libel, a plaintiff is not required to plead specific or special damages to satisfy jurisdictional requirements. This was supported by references to Malachy v. Soper (1836), Hobbs versus CT Tinling & Co Ltd [1929], and Jameel v. Wall Street Journal Europe [2005], as well as Tanzanian cases like Sauda Mfinanga vs. Managing Editor Uwazi Newspaper (2013) and Apollo Maruma T/A Maruma & Co. Advocates v. The Editor of Mwanahalasi (2008). The ruling also emphasized that the pecuniary jurisdiction of courts in Tanzania for defamation cases is determined by the nature of the claim (libel vs. slander) rather than the amount of damages sought.
Precedent Name
- Sauda Mfinanga vs. Managing Editor Uwazi Newspaper and 3 Others
- Parin A.A. Jaffer and another vs. Abdulrasul Ahmed Jaffer and two others
- Tanzania Breweries Limited vs. Anthony Nyingi
- Tanzania China Friendship Textile Co. Ltd vs. Our Lady of the Usambara Sisters
- Apollo Maruma T/A Maruma & Co. Advocates v. The Editor of Mwanahalasi and 2 others
Cited Statute
- Written Laws (Miscellaneous Amendments) (No. 2) Act No. 4 of 2016
- Judicature and Application of Laws Act, CAP. 358 R.E, 2002
- Civil Procedure Code, CAP. 33 R.E, 2002
- Newspaper Act, CAP. 229 R.E, 2002
- Advocates Act, CAP. 341 R.E, 2002
- Magistrate Court Act, CAP. 11 R.E.2002 as amended
Judge Name
E.M. Feleshi
Passage Text
- In the present case the facts pleaded shows that the tortuous wrong of defamation is based on libel. In that regard the general principle that the plaintiff must plead for specific or special damages can not apply.
- In view of the foregoing analysis, the 1st point of preliminary objection is untenable and is hereby overruled.
- ... as an exception to the general rule where pleading for substantive claims and special damages is a key criterion in establishing the pecuniary jurisdiction, the plaintiff suing for defamation on libel, like in the plaintiff's case here, is not obliged to plead for specific or special damages in order to satisfy the statutory parameters set out for engaging the jurisdiction of the Court.