Wickremanayake V. The Times Of Ceylon, Limited

1937   Present : Maartensz and Koch JJ.

WICKREMANAYAKE v. THE TIMES OF CEYLON,
LIMITED.

224-D. C. Colombo, 5,005.

Defamation-Measure of damages-Proof of special damage unnecessary- Roman-Dutch law.

Where, in an action for defamation, the words used by the defendant are prima facie actionable it is not necessary to give proof of special damage.

Plaintiff may recover a verdict for damages without giving evidence of actual pecuniary loss.

APPEAL from a judgment of the District Judge of Colombo.

Hayley, K.C. (with him N. E. Weerasooria and E. B. Wickramanayake), for the appellant.

H. V. Perera, K.C. (with him N. Nadarajah), for the respondents.

Cur. adv. vult.

November 17, 1937. MAARTENSZ J.-

This is an action for the recovery of a sum of Rs. 20,000 as damages sustained by the plaintiff by reason of a libellous paragraph being published concerning him in the issue of the newspaper known as the Times of Ceylon, dated January 24, 1936.

The defendants who are the proprietors and editor-in-chief respectively of the newspaper in question admitted the publication of the paragraph and that it was libellous, but denied that the plaintiff suffered the damages claimed. They alleged that they had made all possible amends for the publication of the paragraph by publishing an apology and an expression of regret in the issue of the paper dated January 27, 1936, and they brought into Court a sum of Rs. 500 as representing the damages suffered by the plaintiff.

The District Judge awarded the plaintiff Rs. 500 as damages and directed him to pay the defendants' costs.

The plaintiff appeals from this award.

I do not think it necessary to set out the paragraph complained of, in full. It is sufficient to say that it purports to be a report of certain proceedings in the Police Court of Galle in which one Letchimanan Chettiar charged one Mr. Benjamin Jayesekere with cheating, and the plaintiff with abetment.

As the libel must have injured the plaintiff's reputation it is actionable per se and the plaintiff may recover a verdict without giving any evidence of actual pecuniary loss. (Nathan's Common Law of S. Africa, vol. III., p. 1626, s. 1585.)

The plaintiff in his plaint claimed damages for pain of mind and injury to his reputation, and, judging by the averments in paragraphs 7 to 10 of the plaint, on the ground of his defeat at the poll taken for the election of a member to the State Council by the Galle electorate. The last ground of claim was abandoned at the trial.

It was not alleged or proved that the defamation was deliberate and malicious, or that the defendants, who were deceived by the forgery of the signature of their reporter in Galle, Mr. Wootler, to the communication, were culpably reckless or negligent in the matter. There were therefore no circumstances to enhance the damages.

The 24th of January, 1936, was a Friday. The plaintiff heard of the paragraph that night and instructed his Proctor, Mr. Jayasundere, to send a letter of demand to the second defendant demanding payment of a sum of Rs. 50,000 as damages sustained by the plaintiff by reason of the publication (letter P 8). The letter was according to the second defendant's evidence received by him on the 27th ; but he had received on the 25th a telegram from Mr. Wootler in which he denied sending the report. In the issue of the 27th, the second defendant published an apology. I do not think I can possibly accept the suggestion that the apology was a tardy one. P 9 is a copy of the apology that was published. It appeared as a second leading article and is headed " Forged Report sent to ' Times of Ceylon '. Claims for damages follow ".

These headlines would certainly draw the attention of the readers of the paper to the article. There should also in my opinion have been a headline to indicate that the article was intended to be an apology for the publication of the repo

Click Here to Read the rest of this document