Yohana Mujuni v. Isaya s/o Bakobi, (PC) Civ. App. 123-M-68, 8/10/68, Seaton J.

The plaintiff sued the defendant for “spoiling his reputation, maliciously imprisoning him and uprooting his crops”. The parties are neighbours and had numerous disputes over the rights of each in relation to the land of the other. In the course of one dispute, the defendant made a report to the police that the plaintiff had threatened violence to him c/s 89(1) (a), Penal Code. the plaintiff was arrested, remanded in prison for two days and criminal proceedings were instituted against him. The police and district officer also uprooted the plaintiff’s crops in the area over which the dispute had arisen. The criminal proceedings terminated in the plaintiff’s favour, and he now seeks Shs. 1,000/- for being locked up, Shs. 240/- for loss of work which attending primary court and Shs. 328/20 for loss of crops are related expenses. The Primary Court found for the plaintiff but reduced the award for being locked up an resultant loss of reputation to Shs. 500/-. The Primary Court appears to have treated loss of reputation not as defamation, but a part of the damage from being locked up, that is, false imprisonment. The District Court upheld the award for uprooted crops but set aside all compensation for loss of work and loss of reputation on the ground that the defendant had merely made a report to the police, citing Jacob Tibifumula v. Ntangaku Bebwa and another, (PC) High Court, Civ. App. 208-M-68, and Emir Kyabashulla vs. John Thana, (PC) High Court, Civ. App. 59-67. In the former case, the High Court held that an action for false imprisonment would not lie there the plaintiff had been confined by virtue of a judgment of the Primary Court. In the latter case an action of defamation was held not to lie by the High Court since the defendant in that case had merely reported an alleged offence to the police.

Held: (1) The District Court was correct in refusing to allow damages for loss of reputation and loss of work, on the ground that the defendant merely reported to the police an alleged offence, and the police then took the action which injured the plaintiff. “What the [defendant] had done, he was perfectly entitled to do so, that is to say, to make a report that the appellant had been threatening him with violence”. (Note: The Court seems here to hold that there is at least a qualified privilege, that is, no liability without actual malice for defamatory allegations of crime when made to police).          The District Court erred in upholding the award of Shs. 328/20 for uprooted crops (conversion) which injury was also attributable to action taken by the police and district officer.