Lecturer loses appeal case demanding 250m/- compensation

IRINGA: A SENIOR Lecturer of Iringa University Dr Stephen Kimondo, has faced another setback in his legal battle, losing his appeal for 250m/- in compensation from Evangelical Lutheran Church in Tanzania (ELCT)’s Lake Tanganyika Diocese Bishop Ambele Mwaipopo.

Dr Kimondo had alleged defamation by the bishop, but the High Court in Iringa upheld the earlier judgment from the Iringa Resident Magistrate’s Court in favor of Bishop Mwaipopo.

Bishop Mwaipopo was accused by Dr Kimondo of defamation for a letter he sent to the Vice-Chancellor of Iringa University.

The letter requested intervention to allow a student, sponsored by the diocese, to complete her studies amid allegations that Dr Kimondo, as her supervisor, was pursuing her romantically.

High Court Judge Danstan Ndunguru ruled that there was no reason to overturn the trial court’s decision. “I find no merit in the appeal. The trial court’s judgment is upheld, and the appeal is dismissed with costs,” Judge Ndunguru stated.

ALSO READ: Four ex-Police Officers in court for murder case

During the appeal, Dr Kimondo challenged the trial court’s findings, arguing that it had misinterpreted defamation laws and failed to recognise the defamatory nature of the bishop’s statements.

However, Judge Ndunguru emphasised that for a defamation claim to succeed, the claimant must prove that the statements were false, published and caused harm.

The judge reviewed the evidence and found that the bishop’s statements, made in his capacity as a sponsor of the student, were based on what he had been informed and were not intended to defame Dr Kimondo.

The bishop’s communication was deemed protected under qualified privilege, as it was made in the course of his duties and without malice.

Judge Ndunguru concluded that the bishop, acting as a leader of the diocese, was performing a duty that included communicating matters of concern related to the student’s academic progress.

The judge noted that the bishop’s actions were covered by qualified privilege and did not constitute defamation.