The facts of the case are that in the year 2012, a person by
the name Makete (a businessman) showed interest in purchasing land belonging to
the Adventist Church in Kyela Town and communicated this interest through Mr.
Edson, a doctor in one of the dispensaries in the area. DW1 a pastor of the
Adventist church, refused the said offer arguing that it was in a blessed area
which was also a place of worship. Mr. Edson was displeased with DWl’s stance
and subsequently sought audience of the church leaders of the Diocese, that is,
the 1st and 2nd Respondents who were at the time, the
chairman and the secretary respectively, to get their stand on the offer on the
table.
Soon after, the 1st and 2nd
Respondent travelled to Kyela to meet the purchaser and visit the respective
area. When DW1 was queried on this issue, he denied knowing anyone interested
in buying the area but insisted that the land cannot be sold. Consequential to
the said discussions, DW1 was transferred from Kyela District to a new work station
in Sumbawanga District and before moving to the new station, he was summarily
terminated as a pastor and prohibited to deal with any church business.
On the 13th September, 2013, the 1st
Appellant published an article titled; “ Waumini wagundua njama za kuuza
kanisa’, unofficial translation is “Believers/Worshippers discover
conspiracy to sell church’. This article is what prompted the Appellants to
file a suit against the Respondents in the High Court of Tanzania (trial court)
and contended that being church leaders, the article was defamatory since the
contents therein injured and lowered their reputation. This prompted the 1st
and 2nd Respondents to institute the suit against the 1st,
2nd and 3rd Appellants for defamation and claimed to be
paid an amount in excess of Tshs. 150,000,000/-. After a full trial the High
Court Judge found in favour of the 1st and 2nd
Respondents and awarded each of them Tshs. 50,000,000/= as general damages.
Aggrieved the Appellants filed this appeal contending, among others, that the
trial court had no jurisdiction to hear and determine the suit especially since
the main relief sought was for general damages.