Date Posted: 3/22/2012 1:31:21 PM
Posted By: maxwellgoko Membership Level: Bronze Total Points: 45
Where a defamatory statement is made of a class of persons or a large group, it is not actionable however where the statement refers to a small group it can be actionable as it can be capable of defaming each one of the persons. Kigozi v The Hon. Abubakar Mayanja the defendants read a speech alleging that some members of the board of directors of a certain company were taking money out of the country for their own use. There were eight members of the board including the plaintiff who brought an action in his own name. It was held the plaintiff’s action would be upheld because the group in question was so small that the defendant’s statement was capable of defaming each one of them.No action lies at civil law for defaming a dead person, no matter how much it may annoy or upset his relatives and also where the victim of defamation or the defamer dies after publication of the defamation but before judgment has been obtained. There may possibly be a prosecution for criminal libel if the necessary or natural effect of the words used is to render a breach of the peace imminent or probable. As regards criticism of a trader, it is not defamatory merely to criticize his goods so long as the trader is not attacked.The House of Lords held that in Derbyshire County Council v Times Newspapers that a local council could not sue for defamation. It was said that their Lordships, in the highest interest of the public that a council should be subject to scrutiny and criticism and it would again for such interest for such authorities to have any right under the common law to bring a claim of defamation.It is contrary to public interest for a political party to have a right at common law to sustain an action for defamation. In a free and democratic society parties which put up for office should always be open to criticism. The public interest on freedom of speech should not be fettered. Candidates could bring claims but not extend this to political parties was not to the public interest.In Goldsmith v Bhoyrul Sir James Goldsmith sought to establish that the Referendum Party, which he founded to contest seats in the 1997 General Election, could sue for defamation. Although incorporated as a company limited by guarantee, Buckley J held that it functioned as a political party and that the threat of defamation proceedings would be a fetter on the freedom of speech which was so important at election times. The party had no locus standi, therefore, to sue for defamation.
Next: The Difference between Libel and SlanderPrevious: Move past high school results.
Get premium membership