1.

0 MATERIAL FACTS
1.1 That Mr Nkasa (herein referred to as the defendant) posted a statement on his Facebook
platform which has a huge following
1.2 That the defendant claimed that Mr Mtambo (herein referred to as the claimant)is a
bandit and a threat to the people of Malawi
1.3 That the defendant called for public opinion on the same
2.0 ISSUES
2.1 Whether or not the defendant’s statement was defamatory
2.2 Whether or not the statement referred to the claimant
2.3 Whether or not the statement was published
2.4 Whether or not there are remedies available to the claimant
3.0 INSTRUCTIONS
3.1 We are providing a legal opinion for the claimant on the matter on whether or not the

statement constitutes an action in the tort of defamation.

4.0 The Law

4.1 In the case of Byrne v Deane[1937] 1 KB 818 (CA) it was held that a statement is
defamatory if it erodes the standing of a person in the eyes of reasonable people in the
society.
4.2 A legal principle in the case of Newstead v London Express Newspaper (1940 provides
that a statement is said to refer to the claimant where a reasonable person in the
society would think the statement referred to the claimant.
4.3 Lord Esher commented in the case of Pullman v Hill [1891] 1 QB 524 that a statement
amounts to publication if it was written to some person other than the person of whom
it was written.
5.0 APPLICATION OF THE LAW TO THE FACTS
5.1 The defendant’s statement was defamatory. The statement from the defendant calling
the claimant a bandit and a threat to the citizens of Malawi is as regards the legal
principle in the case of Byrne v Deane that a defamatory statement is one which erodes
a person’s standing in eyes of reasonable person, defamatory. People are more likely
than not, to avoid someone who they hear to be a bandit and a threat to them hence
shun them.
5.2 The principle in the case of Newstead v London Express Newspaper provides that a
statement refers to the claimant if a reasonable person would think that it refers to the
claimant. The defendant in posting the name of the claimant and attaching a photo on
 the same, it is fair and a no brainer to conclude that any reasonable person who applies
his mind and logic would think that the statement was really referred to the claimant.
5.3 The defendant’s statement was published. Lord Esher in his statement as per the case of
Pullman v Hill that “a statement is said to be published if it has been written to some
person other than the person of whom the statement was written.” As regards the facts
of the case, the defendant by posting the statement on his Facebook platform with a
huge following on the same and also calling for public opinion, it is surely that he
published the statement.

6.0 AVAILABLE REMEDIES TO THE CLAIMANT

6.1 The court may grant an injunction restraining and preventing the defendant from
publishing defamatory statements. It was held in the case of Bonnard v Perryman that
injunctions should only be awarded by the courts only in cases where the statement was a
libel one. The matter here at is a libel one because it is a permanent one and of course
written, and it is an available remedy should it be applied for.

6.2 Another remedy available is damages. The claimant may be compensated for the loss
suffered as regards their reputation.

7.0 AVAILABLE DEFENCES TO THE DEFENDANT

7.1 We advise our client that if the statement is true, the defendant will have an absolute
defence. This is a principle in the case of Alexander v Northern Eastern Railway [1940] 1 KB 377 , so
long as the defendant is able to prove and justify it.

8.0 CONCLUSION

8.1 The matter as brought by our client, the claimant on a post made by the defendant,
constitutes defamation in tort and may proceed to sue under the same.