John Yamo & another v. Obiyo Achieng & another Civ. App. 211-M-69; 27/10/69; Kimicha J.

John Yamo & another v. Obiyo Achieng & another Civ. App. 211-M-69; 27/10/69; Kimicha J.

The appellants claimed Shs. 400/- damages for defamation. The respondents were husband and wife and had their cattle stolen. One of the suspects was arrested. But the village headman still called a public meeting in his area and asked the respondents to mention the persons they suspected to have stolen their cattle and they mentioned the two appellants. The village headman subjected the two appellants to public interrogation and he was satisfied that there was no sufficient evidence connecting them with the crime. The appellants felt strongly that their character had been stained and that the respondents were found guilty and fined Shs. 50/- each in default three months imprisonment. This decision was quashed by the district court on appeal by the respondents. Having been dissatisfied with the decision of the district court, the appellants’ instituted civil proceedings for deformation against the respondents before the same primary court. This time claiming 1,000/- damages. The primary court gave judgment in their favour but reduced the claim to 400/-. Again the respondents appealed to the district court and their appeal was allowed. The appellants have now appealed to this Court against the decision of the district court.

            Held: “The fact that one suspect was already under arrest did not mean that the respondents had no ground in thinking that there were still more suspects at large.” “The procedure that was adopted by the village headman in calling a public meeting in his area and then to publicly ask the respondents to mention suspects was the one used everywhere in the area. The fact that the respondent was prepared to mention the names of the appellants in public and in their presence is proof that heir suspicion was genuine although not proved. I am also surprised that this claim should be made by citizens from Musoma. For they know very well that it is common government practice to call for names of suspected cattle thieves and the public has always been very cooperative in furnishing such names. They also know that such suspects have been arrested and kept in custody for months while investigation on their conduct was being made. The appellants should therefore consider themselves lucky that the village headman declared them innocent at the public meeting and were not kept in custody.