“Re: Allegations of Libel and Criminal Libel I refer you to the enclosed newspaper articles many of which have been published in newspapers owned by IPP Holdings Ltd of which I am led to understand you are Executive Chairman. Importantly, you will note, that many of the articles have appeared in newspapers published subsequent to our meeting held at your home together with the British High Commissioner in December 2005. The language of the articles is emotive and part of a malicious and mocking campaign of press coverage deliberately perpetrated to do harm to me. In their entirety, the articles are libellous and actionable. The newspapers have shown a reckless disregard towards their common law and professional duty of care. I have no doubt that you will agree, that the articles are deplorable and unacceptable by any media standards. The articles have not only enjoyed east African publication but in many cases have been published on the daily website of the IPP group and have thus been ‘published’ internationally. On the 24th February, my wife wrote to the managing editor of the Guardian and a copy of this letter is enclosed for your attention. My wife has not yet received the courtesy of a reply. Further, the articles here submitted are not complete, the Press Officer at the British High Commission has a complete set of publications which has now been requested. Clearly, the conduct of the newspapers is not conduct that I can ignore. However, before taking any further steps in this matter, it is submitted to you for your consideration as to how you feel, as executive Chairman of IPP Holdings, that the damage done to my reputation and investments in Tanzania might be restored.”
“The main difficulty facing the Defendant in her application to strike out seems to me to be the fact that she has not removed the words complained of from her blog……….I am not suggesting that she should have removed the words complained of from the blog. Whether she ought to have done that, or not, depends on whether she wrote was true, or protected by any other defence in law, and those are issues to be tried in the action, as is the issue of meaning. However she has decided to exercise what she claims to be her right to freedom of expression. Given the seriousness of the allegations made in the weblog, and the Defendant’s insistence that she is entitled to continue publishing the words complained of, I cannot conclude that it is an abuse of the process of court for the Claimant to continue to prosecute this action. In the circumstances, it would be inappropriate for me to express a view on the strength or otherwise of the Claimant’s case as to the extent to which the words complained of in the blog have been published in the past. But as a matter of case management, in the light of the foregoing, I would expect that little time will be spent at the trial on the issue of who read the words complained of on the blog, and in what jurisdiction.”
“100. My brother, Benjamin Mengi is based in Moshi Town while I am for all intents and purposes geographically based in Dar as Salaam although I have a residence and a business, namely Bonite Bottlers Limited, in Moshi Town. We are not involved in each other’s business and neither of us is a partner, director or shareholder in any of the companies or businesses of the other. 101. For the most part Benjamin and I lead separate lives and do not socialize or move in the same social circles except for a few filial engagements in which we participate by virtue of being related. 102. I would not and have never allowed my relationship with Benjamin Mengi to compromise my principles and responsibilities. For example: a) In 2005 the National Environment Management Council while under my chairmanship intervened and stopped the growing of Genetically Modified Tobacco, which was being conducted by Benjamin Mengi through a company called Alpha Tobacco Limited at Silverdale Farm. b) In 2007 I resigned in protest as Chairman of the Investment Committee of the National Investment Company (NICO) after the company invested in a company in which Benjamin Mengi has an interest without following the proper protocols. I exhibit a copy of my letter of resignation at RAM 1 pages 170 and 171.” a) In 2005 the National Environment Management Council while under my chairmanship intervened and stopped the growing of Genetically Modified Tobacco, which was being conducted by Benjamin Mengi through a company called Alpha Tobacco Limited at Silverdale Farm. b) In 2007 I resigned in protest as Chairman of the Investment Committee of the National Investment Company (NICO) after the company invested in a company in which Benjamin Mengi has an interest without following the proper protocols. I exhibit a copy of my letter of resignation at RAM 1 pages 170 and 171.”
“I would like to inform you with regret that I wish to resign from the Chairmanship and Membership of NICO from the date of this letter for the following reasons:- 1. NICO has invested in Interchem Pharma Ltd. This investment was not recommended by the Investment Committee because the proposal thereof was not submitted to the Committee as it was required. In other words, it was approved by the Board without the recommendation of the Investment Committee of which I am the Chairman. 2. Interchem Pharma was and is still partly owned by my brother Benjamin Mengi. Because the intention to invest in the company was not submitted to the Investment Committee as stated above, I did not have knowledge that NICO was going to have such business relationship with my brother because I was not so informed at any time. Even though I did not participate in any in way in the decision to invest in Interchem, my conscience haunts me both as an individual and Chairman and member of the Investment Committee. May I clarify that my action is not in any way suggesting that the investment was wrong value wise but ethically wrong because of my brother’s interest in Interchem Pharma Ltd.”
“I told him to use their complaints settlement to investigate the matter, and if they did find there was some wrongdoing they should consult an external lawyer, because I had a conflict of interest with the defendant in the case I was doing for Benjamin Mengi.”
“In line with this routine, I considered the letter and gave legal advice to TGL, privilege in which is not waived.”
“You will recall my having officially notified you recently that it is absolutely necessary for my advice to be sought before any of The Guardian Limited publications runs controversial or any otherwise sensitive stories on President Jakaya Kikwete. I told you that I must actually see the copy in question before it goes to print or, in case circumstances make that impossible, that I be contacted by telephone so that I can advice as appropriate. I take this opportunity to state that this remains the Company’s official stand and that all editors are obliged to observe it without fail. Doing so has many advantages. Please, ensure no-one defaults on this. Many thanks for your understanding and cooperation.”
“In an action for libel or slander in respect of words containing two or more distinct charges against the plaintiff, a defence of justification shall not fail by reason only that the truth of every charge is not proved if the words not proved to be true do not materially injure the plaintiff's reputation having regard to the truth of the remaining charges.”
“A person whose character or conduct has been attacked is entitled to answer such attack, and any defamatory statements he may make about the person who attacked him will be privileged, provided they are published bona fide and are fairly relevant to the accusations made…… Mere retaliation, which cannot be described as an answer or explanation, is not protected, but the defendant is not required to be diffident in protecting himself and is allowed a considerable degree of latitude in this respect….. .”
“The law does not concern itself with niceties in such matters. If you are attacked by a prize fighter you are not bound to adhere to the Queensberry rules in your defence.”
“a right to reply in order to rebut the accusations against him and to do so with a considerable degree of latitude, so long as he did not overstep the bounds and include entirely irrelevant and extraneous material.”
“The defendant would be entitled to protect his reputation by a proportionate response which was appropriate both in terms of subject matter and scale of publication. In order for a defendant to avail himself of this form of privilege, the response should not go into irrelevant matters or, in particular, cross over into an attack on the integrity of the claimant if it is not reasonably necessary for defending his own reputation.”
“In those circumstances it seems to me not to be open to the defendants to contend that the purpose of the news release on20 March 1996 was that of vindicating their character or actions. Their position had by then been set out in the preceding newspaper reports…..The news release was merely a further shot in the battle, which shot had been provoked, to some extent at least, by the 13 March article. It did nothing new in order to vindicate the character or actions of the City or Mr Costa.”