Tumanieli v. Aisa d/o Issai. Civ. App. 119-D-67; 18/11/69; Georges C.J.

Tumanieli v. Aisa d/o Issai. Civ. App. 119-D-67; 18/11/69; Georges C.J.

The plaintiff claimed damages under Chagga law for defamation based on a false allegation of theft. The plaintiff succeeded in both counts below.

Held: (1) “That Chagga customary law did provide that any one who made an allegation of theft against another and failed to prove it should pay compensation for the damage done to the good reputation of that other. What limitations there ere on this general proposition are not clear. I think there should be limitations on this general proposition as otherwise problems will be caused in this rapidly developing society.” (2) “Where there is reasonable suspicion that as offence has been committed and good grounds for thinking that a particular person is responsible it is the duty of every citizen to pass on such information as he has on the matter to the police to help them to find the offender. If the police act on such information and arrest anyone then the person who has given the information should not be liable for damages for defamation unless it is plain that he had no good grounds for suspecting the person named and that he was acting spitefully.” (3) “In this way a proper balance can be drawn between the duty of the citizen to help the police in the detection and punishment of offenders and the right of each person not to be accused of an offence except on good ground. Since the Criminal Law requires that offences must be proved beyond reasonable doubt where will be cases in which a Court will acquit because it does not feel sure enough though the evidence is strong enough to raise a great suspicion. In such cases the person who made he accusation should not be punished by being made to pay compensation. Similarly there will be cases where the police take a person into custody for investigations and the person given an explanation which seems quite reasonable and no steps are taken. Again in

such a case the accuser should not be charged unless it can be shown that he deliberately made a false report to police. (4) “There would be other cases in which people might go about the village saying that a particular villager is a thief. That is a different matter. Once the statement is proved false the spreading it would have to pay compensation. A distinction must make between that sort of accusation and a report to the police intended to lead to the investigation of a crime and the punishment of a suspected offender. There should be no compensation payable in such a case unless the report is shown to be false and prompted by malice.” (5) Appeal dismissed.