Court name
High Court of Tanzania

Rugarabamu Archard Mwombeki vs Charles Kizigha & Others () [1979] TZHC 2 (01 January 1979);

Law report citations
1985 TLR 59 (TZHC)
Media neutral citation
[1979] TZHC 2
Mtenga, J.

Mtenga, J.:  The plaintiff in this case is a businessman and he is suing the three defendants for damages for libel. I
The first defendant is employed by the second defendant.  The second

defendant is a registered company incorporated under Cap.212 of the laws of Tanzania, and he is the proprietor A of "The Daily News" which is a National Newspapers.  The third defendant is a Limited liability Company incorporated under Cap.212 of the Laws of Tanzania and  is the Publisher of the second defendant's Newspaper - "The Daily News".
The libel complained of was contained in an issue of the "Daily News" owned by the second defendant of 13th B day of August, 1976 and it was written by one Charles Kizigha the first defendant who was an employee of the second defendant and it was printed and published by the third defendant and it reads as follows: C
   ....Bank rejects Charcoal Export application.
   By Charles Kizigha.
The Bank of Tanzania has rejected applications of Officials of an unregistered firm - Tanzania Charcoal Dealers - D who wanted foreign exchange to go to Iraq to negotiate Charcoal trade, it was learnt yesterday.
The Officials were named as Ndugu Rugarabamu Archard Mwombeki and Ndugu Mohamed.
The documents at the Bank of Tanzania revealed that the two people have been corresponding through the Iraq E Embassy in Dar es Salaam with charcoal dealers in Iraq.
They are reported to have assured Bank official that they had a lot of charcoal to export to Iraq, Bank sources said.
An official from the office of the Registrar of Companies said that "We have just received an application for F registering the firm and we are still considering it".  The forms were submitted on AUGUST,9, this year and a receipt number N. 916141 was issued after a payment of Shs.45/= as fees was made.
The partners of the Tanzania Charcoal Dealers were Ndugu Tonny Wilson Sindano who stays in Upanga Road G at Plot Number 71 and Ndugu Rugarabamu Archard Mwombeki residing in Kinondoni Block Number 31 house Number 15 D, the forms indicated.
It was further indicated that the company would deal with charcoal and other related products.  The offices of the H company are at Mosque/Libya Streets on Plot Number 1809/88.
The Principal Secretary in the Ministry of Trade, Ndugu A.G. Cheyo, said, "I have heard of the Company but the I Ministry has not yet been informed officially about its existence nor its nature of business."

The innuendo averred by the plaintiff in paras 7 and 8 of the Plaint was: A
   7.    "(a)   That the plaintiff was operating a firm that is not registered contrary to the laws of the country.
       (b)   That the plaintiff by operating a company that is not  registered was committing an offence. B
       (c)   That the plaintiff by dealing with Iraq Embassy Officials showed that his dealings were suspicious and/or illegal.
       (d)   That the plaintiff managed to go through to the Bank of Tanzania without the knowledge of the Ministry of Trade C
      (e)    That the plaintiff was hoarding charcoal in the country.
   8. or in the alternative, the said words meant and were understood to mean: D
   (a)   That the plaintiff was a Criminal.
   (b)   That the Plaintiff is a bogus unscrupulous and dishonest businessman.
   (c)   That the plaintiff was a saboteur of our economy by draining the country's foreign exchange for personal    use or E advantage.
Furthermore, the plaintiff claims that in consequence thereof, he has been seriously injured in his character, credit and reputation in the way of his business, and he has been brought into public scandal, odium and contempt and F he has suffered damage.
On the other hand, the three defendants through the services of their advocate Mr. Bantulaki learned counsel from Tanzania Legal Corporation pleaded justification to the article quoted above. G
At the commencement of the trial, issues were agreed as follows:
   1.   Whether the defendants printed and published or caused to have printed and published the words complained of in para 5 of  the plaint.
   2.   Whether the words complained of did bear or were  capable of bearing any meaning defamatory of the plaintiff. H
   3.   Whether the words were true or false.
   4.   Whether the publication was priviledged or was a matter of fair comment.
   5.   Whether the publication referred to caused an injury or loss to his business or to his person. I
   6.   To what relief are the parties entitled.
1985 tlr P62
Mr. Rugarabamu (PW.1) in his sworn statement told the court that he is a businessman dealing with various A businesses such as selling charcoal, selling timber, preparing uniforms; clearing and forwarding goods; and preparing chicken feed for sale.
In his business for selling charcoal, he has a firm known as "Tanzania charcoal Dealers" and his partner in this B charcoal business is called Tonny W. Sindano.  The firm is a registered one under the Companies Ordinance bearing Registration No. 39434 dated the 11th day of August, 1976 -Exhibit p.1.  Before he started this C charcoal business, he requested the Ministry of Trade to look for him outside market vide his letter Exhibit p.2 dated the 15th day of May, 1976.  The letter Exhibit p.2 was responded by the Ministry of Trade through its letter Exhibit  p.3 dated the 27th day of May, 1976 which was addressed to the Director General of the D Government Purchasing Board Republic of Iraq and copied to the plaintiff.  Later the Government of Iraq by way of telex message Exhibit p.4 corresponded with the plaintiff.  The plaintiff then went to the Ministry of Trade with a request to be give an Export Licence but the Ministry of Trade referred him to the Forest Department for this was the department in a position of giving him an Export Licence in goods obtained from the forest.  Forest E department referred him to TWICO., for TWICO was the sole company allowed by the Government to export Charcoal abroad and if they failed to export Charcoal abroad they should have given him a letter authorizing him to do so.  TWICO referred the plaintiff to Tanzania Timber Export Company.  Tanzania Timber Export F Company admitted before the plaintiff that they have failed to export charcoal but they advised the plaintiff to joint them in this business venture or else they were not ready to give him an export licence.  The terms of their agreement were that Tanzania Timber Export Company was going to charge the plaintiff 10% of the charcoal he was going to export and that the charcoal is going to be exported through the name of Tanzania Timber Export G Company. The plaintiff was required to write a letter to Iraq informing them about this agreement and the plaintiff complied with this advice and he wrote a letter a copy of which was tendered in Court as Exhibit p.5 to the H Government of Iraq and he too remitted a copy of this letter to the Ambassador of Iraq based in Dar es Salaam.  He also sent to Iraq a sample of his Charcoal and to prove this he produced Exhibit p.6 which is Air Way Bill No. 094 - 7145 -9452 of East African Airways dated the 26th day of June, 1976.  He did not get a reply from Government of Iraq thus he went again to the Office of Tanzania Timber Export Company to inquire about the I same where he was told that the Government of Iraq had already entered into a contract to buy charcoal with the Government of Kenya and he was so informed by the General Manager of Tanzania

Timber Export Company who was recently in Nairobi Kenya.  He then decided to go and see the Officials of A Bank of Tanzania with the view of negotiating for foreign currency so that he goes to Iraq to negotiate about the sale of charcoal to Iraq with the officials concerned there.  Bank of Tanzania officials advised him to obtain first a B letter from Tanzania Timber Export Company before his request was considered.  As he was going to the office of Tanzania Timber Export to obtain the letter as advised by the officials of Bank of Tanzania, he passed through the post office to collect his mails.  There he found a letter exhibit p.8 dated the 20th July, 1976 C addressed to the plaintiff by the counsellor of Iraq Embassy here in Dar es Salaam.  In the said letter Exhibit p.8 the said Counsellor advised the plaintiff that he should expedite about the arrangements of sale of charcoal to his Government purchasing Board in Iraq.  The plaintiff took the letter Exhibit p.8 up to Tanzania Timber Export Company and showed it to the General Manager of that Company whereby the General Manager gave him a D letter Exhibit p.9 which he took to the Bank of Tanzania as advised.  The Bank of Tanzania again advised him to go to the Ministry of Trade to get a letter of support and he got it and the same was tendered in court as Exhibit p.11.  Later the plaintiff got a copy of a letter Exhibit p.12 addressed to the Governor of the Bank of Tanzania by the Principal Secretary to the Ministry of Commerce and Industries and copied to the plaintiff advising the E Governor of the Bank of Tanzania not to give any clearance to the plaintiff to go to Iraq to negotiate about the deal of sale of charcoal with the Government purchasing Board of Iraq for the sole Company allowed to export charcoal from the country is Tanzania Timber Export Company.  On receipt of the copy of the letter Exhibit F p.12, the plaintiff wrote a letter of protest to the Principal Secretary of the Ministry of Commerce and Industries but unfortunately he failed to produce a copy of that letter and copied that letter to the Governor of the Bank of Tanzania.
The General Manager of Tanzania Timber Export Company respondent to the letter of protest of the plaintiff by G writing a letter Exhibit p.13 to the Principal Secretary of the Ministry of Commerce and Industries and copied the same to the Governor of the Bank of Tanzania, the Principal Secretary to the Ministry of Natural Resources and the plaintiff.  But before that the Bank of Tanzania refused to give clearance to the plaintiff to travel to Iraq to H negotiate about this deal resulting his letter of protest as stated above.  Hereafter the Bank of Tanzania also responded to the plaintiff's letter of protest for on 27th August, 1976 the Director General of the Bank of Tanzania wrote a letter reference No. 1406 dated the 27th August, 1976  and tendered as Exhibit p. 14 to the I Principal Secretary, Ministry of Trade advising him to convene a meeting so that

the business deal of selling charcoal to Iraq should take effect.  As a result of this, a meeting on 13th August, A 1976 was held and the plaintiff was summoned to attend this meeting and indeed he at
tended it.  Other members who attended this meeting were:
   1   Mr. J.N. Mushi - The General Manager of Tanzania Timber Export Company; B
   2.   Mr. A.I. Mongi - one of the Managers from Tanzania Timber Export Company;
   3.   Mr. E.M. Mzara from the Ministry of Forest and Natural Resources; C
   4.   Mr. B.D.S. Scoor - an expert at Tanzania Timber Export Company;
   5.   Mr. E.S. Mbaga who represented the Principal Secretary to the Ministry of Trade. D
In the said meeting, it was resolved that one member from Tanzania Timber Export Company and a representative from the plaintiff's firm should go to Baghdad in Iraq to negotiate about this charcoal  business E deal.  It was also agreed in this meeting that the plaintiff's firm should hand over charcoal to Tanzania Timber Export Company to sell it to Iraq on the Plaintiff's behalf and in return, Tanzania Timber Export Company should charge 10% of the money accrued from the sale. The minutes of the said meeting were tendered in court as exhibit p.15. F
To his surprise, on the 13/8/76 when the plaintiff was going to attend the above stated meeting a friend of his one Mr. Joel Ndyamu (PW.2) gave him a copy of the offending Daily News which he tendered as exhibit p.16 which is owned by the second defendant and published by the first defendant an employee of the second defendant and printed by the third defendant. G
The plaintiff claims that the story appearing in the said newspaper article was not true for he never requested for a licence from the Bank of Tanzania to sell out charcoal; therefore the heading of the article was not true, and that H by the 13th day of August, 1976 when this offending article came out, his firm had already been registered and it was registered on the 11th day of August, 1976 as exhibited in his certificate of registration exhibit p.1.  He asserted as a lie that by 13/8/76 his firm was not registered as put in the article exhibit p.16.  The plaintiff further I claims that the defendants showed the plaintiffs' residential and business addresses in the article exhibit p.16 so that police officers should arrest them for they were considered by the defendants to be criminal offenders. J

The plaintiff further asserted that it is not true that the Ministry of Trade did not know about their charcoal A business as put in the article exhibit p.16 by the defendants for from May, 1976 his firm had been corresponding with the Ministry of Trade and held meetings with the officials of that Ministry as stated above.  The plaintiff therefore claims to have been defamed. B
As a result of this article exhibit p.16, officials from Anti-Corruption Squad on the 23/8/76 went to the office of the plaintiff along Moscow/Libya Street as advertised in the article exhibit p.16 and arrested the plaintiff and his C partner in business.  These anti-corruption officials identified themselves as being Corneus Kafipa and he took him up to his office near Army Headquarters.  In his room, Kafipa took out a copy of the Daily News of the 13/8/76 and enquired from the plaintiff to account as to how his firm would get money to bank up its charcoal business and as to  whether his firm has other dubious dealings with the money requested from the bank of D Tanzania.  He then gave the plaintiff a sheet of paper to write down his statement.  However, the plaintiff refused to write down any statement, whereby Mr. Kafipa threatened to torture him; thereupon, the plaintiff admitted to write down his statement.  The plaintiff's partner was interrogated by another police officer in a separate room. E Both of them were released on that very day at 6.30 p.m. after being warned that they should not leave Dar es Salaam City for any time they could be called upon.
Later sometime in September 1976 the plaintiff received a letter ref. No. 47543 dated the 11th September, 1976 from the Government purchasing Board of Iraq exhibit p. 17 which states in part and I quote: F
   We would like to inform that we had to put your offer of 17th of August in abeyance due to high price.
The plaintiff claims that he suspected the Iraq Embassy in Dar es Salaam to have sent a copy of the Daily News G of 13/8/76 exhibit p.16 to its Government in Iraq resulting his Charcoal business deal with Iraq Government to be revoked as shown in the letter exhibit p.17.  The Plaintiff never went to see Tanzania Timber Export Company again for he is already thought by the Company as a crook and Tanzania Timber Export Company never sold H charcoal to Iraq as agreed upon for the Company depended upon the plaintiff's firm to get the said Charcoal.
The plaintiff further claims that in the first order Iraq Government wanted to buy 3,000 tons of charcoal from his firm that's to say about 60,000 bags of charcoal each weighting 50kgs. at a price of Shs.55.02 per bag could I have been sold to Iraq Government had the agreement not been

revoked by Iraq Government due to this article appearing in the Daily News exhibit p. 16  of 13/8/76.  He claims A that he rang a person working with Iraq Embassy in Dar es Salaam and he got reminded by that person to read his home papers.  The plaintiff further claims that if this business took of, his company could have earned a profit B of Shs.900,000/= net and this profit was lost due to the article which is defamatory written by the defendants.
Later the plaintiff approached the second defendant to correct his errors appearing in the article of 13/8/76 Daily News exhibit p.16 and to offer an apology and the second defendant promised to do so on 16/8/76 but he never C kept his promise.  On 21st August, 1976 through the services of their advocate one Mr. Raithatha, the plaintiffs wrote the Daily News second defendant a letter exhibit p.18 asking him to offer an apology and to pay the plaintiff a reasonable sum by way of damages.  On 23rd August, 1976 the second defendant wrote a letter D Ref. No. ED/CEN/55 to the plaintiffs through their advocate Exhibit p.19 and part of this letter reads and I quote:
   ...While we are making out own investigations on the matter we would like to have from you a sample letter which could be the basis for discussion on a possible apology. E
On receipt of this letter Exhibit p.19, the plaintiff through the services of his other advocate one Mr. Rahim on F 22nd December, 1977 wrote the second defendant another letter Exhibit p.20 demanding for an apology, while reminding him of his previous letter Exhibit p.18.  On receipt of this letter Exhibit p.20 the second defendant wrote a letter Exhibit p.21 bearing Reference No. p BS/AM/119/12/77 dated the 27 the December, 1977 to the Chief Corporation Counsel seeking for legal advice on the matter.  The plaintiff claims that up to the time he came G to court the defendants have never apologized nor have they given him any reasonable compensation for their defamatory article appearing in the article of the Daily News of 13th August, 1976 Exhibit p.16.
The plaintiff further contended that prior to that article Exhibit p.16 the second defendant also published some H other articles which were defamatory about Charcoal business and he tendered such articles as Exhibits p.22 p.24 respectively.
In conclusion, the plaintiff testified that he is a businessman dealing with other businesses apart from dealing with I the sale of charcoal he is dealing with the sale of wood; tailoring of uniforms; Clearing and forwarding goods; Manufacturing chicken feed and animals; and he used to get an annual net profit of::

   1.   Tailoring Sh.200,000/= up to 300,000/=' A
   2.   Timber Shs.300,000/= to Shs.400,000/=
   3.   Clearing and Forwarding of goods Shs.600,000/=
He claims to have had a lot of customers prior to the publication of the offensive article Exhibit p.16 but B thereafter, he no longer gets such a great number of customers and when he appears in his favourite bar known as "White House Bar" to drink along Libya Street here in Dar es Salaam his friends and customers ridiculed and laughed at him calling him all sorts of names and he was stopped selling charcoal because some of his customers consider him to be a criminal offender.  He asks now this court to award him Shs.1 million as damages for this C defamation plus costs of this suit.
Mr. Joel Ndyamkama (PW.2) testified that he is a friend of the plaintiff and that he is a sales Manager of Colt Motors.  Sometime in August, 1976 he bought a copy of the Daily News and to his surprise he saw an offensive article defaming the plaintiff and he took that copy of the Daily News Exhibit p.16 to the plaintiff and from then D on he considered the plaintiff to be a crook who ran a business without registering it, and he looked down upon him.  By then the plaintiff had already applied to the Colt Motors to buy two cars for the purpose of running his E Charcoal business but when the Managing Director of Colt Motors saw the article appearing on Exhibit p. 16, he cancelled the application because he considered the plaintiff to be a crook.
On the other hand, the defendants admitted to have published the article Exhibit p.16 but they pleaded justification and they called two witnesses in their support and these were Mr. Enest Ambali (DW.1) and Richard F Benjamini Mnguhai (DW.2).
During the hearing of this case the court sat with three assessors as provided under section 57(1) of the Newspaper Act, 1976 but during final submissions it was reported that one of the assessors was dead and this situation left the court with only two assessors. G
I directed the two gentlemen assessors that in a libel action, the plaintiff has to prove three things.  Firstly he has to prove whether the defendants published those words complained of; secondly, did the words refer to the H plaintiff? and lastly, were the words complained of, defamatory.  The test of what is defamatory is whether the words complained of would tend to lower the reputation of the plaintiff in the opinion of right-thinking persons.
On the first issue as to whether the defendant printed and published those words complained of in paragraph 5 of I the plaint?  Well the defendants do not deny that and their defence counsel through his submissions readily admitted to have done so.  Further still, the plaintiff

managed to  produce the article in issue Exhibit p.16. A
The second and third issues can be answered together.  As rightly contended by Mr. Mbuya, learned counsel for the plaintiff, which contention I wholly agree with, defamation is a false and malicious statement about a man to B his discredit.  Whether or not a statement is defamatory, the court has to look at the contents of the statement to see as to whether it is true or false and malicious or whether it discredits the one about whom it relates.  Having this in mind, two facts are not true on the Daily News issue Ex.p.16  The heading of the article says: "... Bank C rejects Charcoal export application."  This is not all that true for the evidence as stated above clearly shows that the plaintiff requested for travel clearance to go to Iraq where the prospective customer was and he never applied for an export Licence as the heading of that article Exhibit p.16 wants the public to understand.  Surely D and right thinking person on reading the heading of that article on Exhibit p.16 would come to the conclusion that the business deal between the plaintiff and Iraq Government for selling the latter charcoal was finished for without having an export Licence, the plaintiff could not be in a position of selling charcoal to Iraq Embassy who are based here in Dar es Salaam and who took part in this deal by negotiating on behalf of their Government were E embarrassed.
The next item which I consider to be false is contained in paragraph one of the article in Exhibit p.16 and it read: "... The Bank of Tanzania has rejected applications of two officials of an unregistered firm....."  This I think was as well bad news for Iraq Government together with the officials of Iraq Embassy in Dar es Salaam naturally F believed through this article Exhibit p.16  that they were negotiating with, an unregistered firm and it was as well bad news to right thinking people at large for the public thought that the plaintiff was a crook who wanted to have business with foreign Government without having a registered firm.  The defendants agreed that they printed and G published the article but asserted that was true and pleaded justification to it.  To support their assertion, they brought the Registrar of Companies Mr. Richard Benjamini Mnguhai DW.2) who told the Court that the plaintiff's company was registered on 16th August, 1976 three days after the article Exh.p.16 complained of was printed and published.  This is not at all true for the plaintiff's certificate of registration Exhibit p.1 clearly shows H that the plaintiff's Company was registered on 11th August, 1976 before the publication of Exhibit p.16.
Another false statement in the article Exhibit p.16. is contained in the last paragraph of it and it reads:
   ...The Principal Secretary in the Ministry of Trade, Ndugu A.G. Cheyo, said, I have heard of the Company but the Ministry I has not

   yet been informed officially about its existence nor its nature of business. A
I say that this statement is false because right from the start as I explained above in the evidence of the plaintiff (PW.1) that the plaintiff has approached the Ministry of Trade to enquire about the possibility of exporting B charcoal abroad for sale.  As a result of the plaintiff's inquiries, the Ministry of Trade has written a letter Exhibit p.3 to Iraq Government reminding it about its trade delegation of 1973 looking for wood charcoal and the C Ministry of Trade had asked the Iraq Government to contact the plaintiff directly and copied that letter to the plaintiff and indeed, the Ministry of Trade had requested the plaintiffs firm to get into contract with TWICO and TAN TIMBER which the plaintiff's firm did.  After long correspondence between the plaintiff and Iraq D Government the plaintiff sent a sample of his charcoal to Iraq Government as shown in the Air Way Bill Exhibit p.6 and as a result, of this, the Iraq Government purchasing Board wrote back to the plaintiff wishing to buy an initial of 3,000 tons of charcoal.  It is therefore not true that the Ministry of Trade was not officially aware of the existence of the plaintiff's firm.
The next issue is whether the words used in the article Exhibit p.16 were defamatory of the plaintiff.  To this Mr. E Mbuya learned counsel for the plaintiff referred me to the case of East African Standard v Gittan [1970] E.A. 678 where it was held by Spry Ag. J. as he then was that the test of what is defamatory is whether the words complained of would tend to lower the reputation of the plaintiff in the opinion of right-thinking persons; F and one could look at the general impression they are likely to create in the minds of reasonable persons.  In the instant case of article Exhibit p.16 has carried, an innuendo that there was an illegal firm in the sense that it was not registered and that this unregistered firm was carrying on business without complying with the requirements of the law resulting the Bank of Tanzania to react by refusing to grant it export licence for exporting charcoal G abroad.  There is evidence on recording by the plaintiff (PW.1) and his witness (PW.2) that after publication of this article exhibit p.16 which evidence was not disputed that the plaintiff (PW.1) and his partner were arrested and interrogated in connection with this charcoal business as exhibited in the article Exhibit p.16. Moreover the H plaintiff's application to buy two motor vehicles from Colt Motors for his charcoal business as stated by his friend (PW.2), was also revoked as a result of the publication of this article Exhibit p.16.  Later PW.2 went to the plaintiff and enquired from him as to whether what he had read in the article Exhibit p.16 was true and when the I plaintiff went to drink in one of the bars he normally used to frequent the "White House Bar," he was

looked down upon as a crook by his customers and friends.  I agree with Mr. Mbuya's contention that by then A the Daily News was the only substantial media in the country with a wide circulation and among the people who read it were the people of Iraq Embassy in Dar es Salaam whom the plaintiff with the knowledge of the Ministry B of Trade was contacting with Iraq Government trying to sell charcoal in Iraq.
In conclusion therefore, I agree with the unanimous opinion of the two gentlemen assessors that the article exhibit p. 16 was recklessly prepared on incorrect information and the publication of this article appearing in exhibit p.16 C has injured the reputation of the plaintiff and it has exposed him to hatred, contempt and it has damaged him in his business profession.  The defendants acted in this manner without lawful justification or excuse and the information was false.
I now come to consider the fifth and sixth issues and these two issues can be consolidated together for they are inter-related.  With that I directed the two gentlemen assessors to consider the following: D
   (a)   Gravity of the defamation,
   (b)   Whether the libelous imputation was conveyed to the general mass of readers of the Daily News, E
   (c)   Regard should be taken on the defendants' refusal to publish an apology.
The two gentlemen assessors were of the unanimous opinion that the plaintiff should be awarded Shs.470,400/= as general damages. F
It is true that the innuendo appearing on Exhibit p.16 was disparaging to the plaintiff's character and the article imputed the commission of a crime by the plaintiff and that is why he was arrested, and detained for interrogation by the anti-corruption officials for a number of hours.  As a result of the libel plaintiff's business has dwindled as G the general public has shunned away from him.  For they look down upon him as a crook after reading that article.  Even though I look at this claim with a bit of scepticism for it is likely that the plaintiff might have exaggerated this claim out of feelings of indignation.  Indeed the plaintiff's business contact with Iraq Government H had come to an abrupt end due to the publication of this libellous article Exhibit p.16 but also due to high price as complained by the Iraq Government in their letter Exhibit p.17.  Also take into view that the Daily News had a wide circulation for it is read not only in the whole country but also in neighbouring countries. More and above, I the second defendant's conduct after publication of the libel aggravated the matter.  The second defendant did not respond to letters sent to him by the plaintiff's advocates nor did he offer an apology.  I agree that in these

circumstances the plaintiff is entitled to substantial damages bearing in mind that the plaintiff's means of livelihood A has seriously been threatened.
I am not however, in agreement with the opinion of the gentlemen assessors that the amount of damages be in the region of Shs.470,400/=.  The plaintiff tried to bring in some figures in order to convince the court as to how B much he used to earn before the publication of this offending article but he never told the court as to how much he is now earning in his various businesses after the publication of this article and nor did he produce his books of accounts to prove what actually he earned in his various businesses before the publication of this offensive article C Exhibit p.16 and this being the position, the plaintiff might have exaggerated out of feelings of indignation and the figures of profits of his businesses might not be all that accurate.  It should also be borne in mind that the business contract with the Iraq Government was not at all concluded and the plaintiff had all the opportunity to mitigate the damage by selling his charcoal locally.
It is therefore my view that the interests of justice will be served if the plaintiff is awarded Shs.200,000/= as D general damages plus costs and interest.  It is so ordered.
Plaintiff is awarded Shs.200,000/=