Mwakayoka & Anor. v Blantyre Newspapers Limited (Civil Cause 21 of 2012) [2017] MWHC 128 (16 May 2017)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MALA WI PRINCIPAL REGISTRY CIVIL CAUSE NUMBER 21 OF 2012 BETWEEN: JEREMIA MW AKA YOKA 1st PLAINTIFF EMMANUEL MZANGA 2"d PLAINTIFF AND BLANTYRE NEWSPAPERS LIMITED DEFENDANT Coram: JUSTICE M. A. TEMBO counsel Masanje, Kalua, Chanonga, counsel Official for the Plaintiffs for the Defendant Court Interpreter JUDGMENT of this Court following This is the judgment for defamation. The plaintiffs officers on complained defendant defamatory of the newspaper published concerning the plaintiffs. were police is the publisher at the time of the publicati of the plaintiffs' where the alleged claim for damages trial The against. words were published The defendant an article headed in its Malawi News newspaper "ACB PROMPT ON CASES INV At the centre is placed OLYING POLICE of 12-18 November 2011, of that article OFFICERS". of the plaintiffs herein and recognisable visible the defendant the picture, their cases". investigate and three other police while the other officers placed a caption a picture which bears the faces faces were men. Only the plaintiffs' Under faced away from the camera. "most complained against -Easy to to them in the picture argument is defamatory is that the reference against with their faces coupled The plaintiffs' against complained of the article juxtaposition of them as the same would be understood is defamatory of the society to mean the corruption they are among those convicted and costs of the action. defamation plaintiffs being investigated of corruption. and that they are member by every reasonable against in terms of Bureau or that by the Anti-Corruption claim damages They therefore as the most that the are the most complained for them. Specifically, they pleaded with the caption aforementioned of referring on the other hand argues The defendant capable complained the meanings the tenor of the whole article of could be understood as ascribed to the plaintiffs. that the story complained They further pleaded that about was not if the words then they did not bear to refer to the plaintiffs to them by the plaintiffs in their statement of claim because is about the police generally and not about the plaintiffs. This Court is aware of the trite this matter. the reputation of the CCAP [2008] of another MLR 117. Anyone who publishes law on defamation any matter as submitted that is untrue See Migochi parties in on by both to injure and is likely Trustees v Registered is guilty of defamation. whether the published The Court must there was publication The Court must whether must further consider whether plaintiff. meaning meaning defamatory The parties cited the have correctly society. [1990] 13 MLR 34, Maluza v David Whitehead (2)MLR 564, Nftungila v Malawi Post Corporation BAT (Malawi) also consider in their ordinary relevant Limited [1995] MLR 148. of words complained words complained the words complained of refer to the of convey a of. The Court to a reasonable member of the case law. See Banda v Pittman and Sons (Mw) Limited [1993] MLR 46 and Mbilizi v [2006] ' 2 also rightly The plaintiffs conduct Limited on a person is defamatory ALL ER 449. [1950] 2 submitted that imputation of that person. of fraudulent or dishones See Turner v MGM Pictures t r, Where the sting of the defamation and an antidote is provided that you have a defamatory part and a conclusion removing there is no de famation. See Cha lmer v Payne (183 5) 2 Cr. M. & R. 156. in the same article, the defamation, then in As far as the evidence article with the words complained is concerned, of in this matter. there is no dispute as to the publication of the The evidence of the plaintiffs with their faces coupled with the captions complained of. is quite clear that there was juxtaposition of the article By putting the plaintiffs' to do with the plaintiffs. but to the police the plaintiffs faces on the article, The defendant's generally argument that the article does not refer to cannot therefore hold in the circumstances. the article was made to have everything The defendant further argued that the words complained of are not capable of bearing a defamatory in their natural and ordinary meaning to a reasonable meaning reader. because argued that the whole article the sting and antidote The defendant the plaintiffs whole article puts matters in context as to what the Anti-Corruption discovered in relation about probably of in that the Bureau has to the whole police service which is the most complained may be argued to be non-defamatory is provided interface with members of the public. due to its extensive in the same article in the same article, The defendant contended provided removing the defamation, 2 Cr. M. & R. 156. that where the sting of the defamation and an antidote is in that you have a defamatory part and a conclusion then there is no defamation. See Chalmer v Payne (1835) with the captions with the plaintiffs of the plaintiffs as the same would be understood This Court agrees pictures plaintiffs society corruption and that they are being investigated by the Anti-Corruption Bureau. The corruption the plaintiffs' that the set-up of the article complained by every reasonable juxtaposing the of is defamatory of the member of the in terms of to mean that the plaintiffs faces which are juxtaposed are the most complained with the article. It is clearly against involv�s d ishonest and the imputation of the same t o the plaintiffs is defamatory. The defendant's witness was pressed on why the plaintiff's face the article s were printed on and he could not explain the reasons. the whole article Although defamatory the impression plaintiffs mean that at a glance investigated in the picture tenor about the police that the picture may be argued by the defendant to be in a non­ a reasonable generally reader of the plaintiffs are the most complained it is the plaintiffs in particular and the picture about and easy to investigate that are the ones that are easily caption would be left with that the may and are the most complained about in corruption related matters. in the set-up clearly, as rightly The words complained of therefore of bearing a defamatory meaning particularly plaintiffs' picture true that the plaintiffs corruption or have been complained of concerning corruption. of the article, by the plaintiffs. the reasons as it was. And it is not for submitted could not explain with the captions true given that the defendant was set up in the article are capable This is why the are under any investigations in the captioned picture The plaintiffs are ther assessed by the Registrar. efore awarded damages for defamation which shall be The successful plaintiffs to be taxed, if not agreed. shall have the costs which shall be borne by the defendant Made in open court at Blantyre this 16th May 2017 . . Tembo JUDGE 4