TANGANYIKA STANDARD (N) LTD. & ANOTHER v RUGARABAMU ARCHARD MWOMBEKI 1987 TLR 40 (CA)

 

TANGANYIKA STANDARD (N) LTD. & ANOTHER v RUGARABAMU ARCHARD MWOMBEKI 1987 TLR 40 (CA)

Court Court of Appeal of Tanzania - Dar Es Salaam

Judge Makame JJA, Kisanga JJA and Omar JJA

28th July 1987

Flynote

Tort - Defamation - Libel - Damages - Whether quantum of damages too excessive.

Tort - Damages - Assessment of - Whether quantum of damages to the tune of Shs 200,000/= not adequate.

-Headnote

This is an appeal arising from the judgement of the High Court finding for the respondent in an action for libel and awarding him damages to the tune of Shs. 200,000/=. The respondent is cross appealing on the inadequacy of the award due to inflation.

Held: (i) The quantum of damages is justified where the trial judge takes into account all pertinent and relevant considerations;

(ii) where a judge has not based an award on the shilling value in any year, he must properly be taken to have based the award on the shilling value at the time he was making the award.

Case Information

Appeal and cross appeal dismissed.

No case referred to.

Mneney, for appellant

Mbuya, for respondent

Judgment

Kisanga, Makame and Omar, JJ.A: This appeal arises from the judgement of the High Court (Mtenga, J.) finding for the respondent in an action for libel and awarding him damages to the tune of shs. 200,000/-. The appeal is only against the quantum of damages, too excessive but the respondent has, at the same time cross-appealed on the in-adequacy of the award.

The trial judge found that the respondent was entitled to recover substantial damages in respect of a libel published by the second appellant in a newspaper owned by the first appellant. Arguing the appeal before us Mrs. Mneney for the appellants complained that the award was excessive. However, we could find no merit in that contention. In arriving at the award the High Court took into account a number of factors including the wide circulation of the newspaper in which the libel was published, the refusal by the E appellants to tender an apology despite repeated invitations to do so, the loss of a prospective charcoal business overseas, the respondent's various sources of income before the publication of the libel - making allowance for possible exaggeration - and the failure by the respondent to show the loss in his income as a result of the publication. We think that all these were pertinent and relevant considerations. The respondent had asked for one million shillings general damages but the High Court assessed it at shs. 200,000/-. Bearing in mind the factors as set above, we think that the award was quite justified, and counsel has advanced no grounds for alleging that it was excessive.

The respondent was represented in this appeal by Mr. E. Mbuya the learned advocate who had also appeared for him in the High Court. Mr. Mbuya's main contention in the cross-appeal was that in assessing the award, the learned trial judge failed to take into account the aspect of inflation which had caused a fall in the value of the shilling from 1979 when the plaint was filed to 1986 when the award was made. In our view this complaint is equally without merit. We think that in the absence of ruling to the contrary an award in a judgement is deemed to be based on the value of the shilling as at the date I of the award. When making the award in the present case in 1986 the learned judge did not say that he was basing the award on the value of the shilling in 1979, and indeed there is nothing in the judgement to suggest so. In the circumstances, therefore, he must properly be taken to have based on the award of Shs. 200,000/= on the value of the shilling as at the time he was making the award in 1986. We can find no ground at all for Mr. Mbuya's suggestion to the contrary.

In the result we are satisfied that both the appeal and the cross-appeal are without substance, and are accordingly dismissed. As neither the appeal nor the cross-appeal was successful, it is further ordered that each party shall bear his or its own costs.

 Appeal dismissed.

1987 TLR p42