Try asking the following...
HEWARD-MILLS J. This is an appeal by the Defendant/Appellants (hereinafter called the defendants) against 6 rulings made by the trial judge during the cross examination of the second plaintiff who together with others has instituted and action for defamation against the defendant/appellants The defamatory words were set out in schedule A, schedule B and in paragraph 19 of the statement of claim.
The statements were said to have been made during broadcast on various dates and also published on a website belonging to the first defendant.
The statements were produced in court on tapes together with transcripts provided by the plaintiffs.
This appeal, being interlocutory, it is obligatory on the court to deal with the substantive issues yet at the same time avoid any pronouncements that might unnecessarily prejudice the remaining trial, to this end this judgment will merely seek to highlight only the areas of the proceedings which are essential to the final verdict herein.
Preceding the first ruling, defence council had sought to establish the status of an individual who the witness had admitted giving a car to.
To this, counsel for the plaintiff raised an objection because according to him he did not know where the question was going to, if the cross examination was towards establishing that the second plaintiff had “some reputation” then the cross examination had to be stopped.
After heated arguments in the courtroom.
There were further objections because it was alleged that defence counsel was seeking to cross examine on a meaning attributed to a statement made which meaning had been denied in the statement of defence.
To these objections the court ruled, that the defence had denied a meaning attributed to the defamatory statement in schedule B by the plaintiffs and yet was seeking to cross examine on that meaning.
The judge considered this as contradictory and warned that “any attempt to use this line of cross examination will not be allowed”The second objection arose after the following question was put to the witness, “Now the case of my client I should say is that these two vehicles were given as gifts by your company upon your instruction to these two ladies for the purposes of promoting your business”The essence of the objection was that that piece of evidence was already in to test the credibility of the witness, “it should therefore not be smuggled in as a basis for making an analogy”The court ruled that the cross examination had been in re