By Evarist Baimu Nyaga Mawalla - Home

the appellants employment be terminated and the board of directors of W.D.Cterminated his services without giving him an opportunity to be heard. The trialcourt found the complaints to be baseless on the following grounds (a) that therespondents were availed the defence of qualified privilege; and (b) that theappellant was afforded and opportunity to be heard by KUBK. On appeal to theCourt of Appeal.Held: (I) Where a person raised the defence of qualified privilege on the groundthat he had a duty to make the offending statement it must further be shown thatthe statement was made in good faith and that the person to whom it was madehad a corresponding interest and duty to receive it(ii) the report containing defamatory statements was ordered by the generalcouncil of the first respondent and was expressly required to be submitted to thatbody. Publication of the report to members of KUBK when they were notsupposed to receive it was wring; (iii) it was necessary to afford the appellant theopportunity to be heard by the body which ultimately decided his fate i.e. theboard of directors, because there can be no guarantee that given that opportunityhis defence before the board of directors would necessarily be same as hisdefence before the probe team.Appeal allowed.Makame, Omar and Kisanga, JJ.A.; The appellant sued the first respondent,JUMUIYA YA WAFANYAKAZI TANZANIA (JUWATA), for defamation and in thesame plaint he also sued the second respondent, the Workers DevelopmentCorporation (W.D.C.) for wrongful termination of his employment. The secondrespondent in a counter-claim sued for unrefunded loans which the appellant hadobtained from the said respondent with or without authorization. The high Courtin which the action was brought dismissed both the claim and the counter-claimand made an order for costs against the appellant. The appellant is nowappealing, but the second respondent has not appealed against the dismissal ofits counter-claim351