By Evarist Baimu Nyaga Mawalla - Home

The facts of the case may be stated briefly as follows; The appellant wasemployed by the W.D.C. as its general manager; As part of his duties, theappellant prepared and submitted a report of the W.D.C. and its subsidiarycompanies at the annual meeting of the general council of JUWATA it is thegeneral council of JUWATA it is the genera council of JUWATA consisting of twoto three hundred members which supervises the affairs of the W.D.C As theappellant was trying to present his report before the general council members ofthe council felt that the report involved certain inadequacies or unsatisfactorymatters which made it necessary to appoint a probe team of seven members toexamine the report and suit their findings to the general council at its nextmeeting.; After the report of the probe team was prepared it was presented to theSecretary-General of JUWATA who, however, submitted it, not to the generalcouncil as had been directed but to the Kamati ya Usimamizi ya Baraza kuu(KUBK) consisting of 20 to 30 members, and also to the Board of Directors ofthe W.D.C.Upon receiving the probe report, the KUBK required the appellant to appearbefore it to defend himself against allegations made against him in the report andhe did so. In addition to the appellant’s defence the KUBK also received from theboard of directors of the W.D.C. their comments on the probe report,. After thatthe KUBK proceeded to appoint a select committee to scrutinize further the probereport in the light of the appellant’s defence and the comments by the board ofdirectors of the W.D.C. and then report back to the KUBK. The select committeeaccordingly submitted its report and after discussing and adopting it the KUBKrecommended the termination of the appellant’s employment acting on therecommendation, the board of directors of the W.D.C. accordingly terminated theappellant’s employment.The appellant’s claim for defamation was essentially based on the publication ofthe probe report to the bodies of persons other than that which had ordered ordirected such probe. And the basis for his complaint against wrongful terminationwas that he was givenNo opportunity to be heard by the body, which terminated his employment.352