Wakilii

Hirji v National Bank of India (CC. 81-1.932.)

East African Court of Appeal · [1932] EACA 41 · 1932 Application Granted AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for leave to deliver interrogatories in a libel action
Decision
Application granted; defendants ordered to answer all interrogatories including those seeking disclosure of sources of information

Observed later treatment

No later-treatment classification is recorded for this judgment.

Citator coverage is limited to judgments in the Wakilii corpus and source-matched treatment records. Absence of a signal is not an assertion that the case remains good law.

AI-generated summary. This summary was generated by AI from the full text of the judgment. It may contain errors or omissions—always read the source judgment before relying on it.

Holding

In a libel action where malice is in issue, interrogatories requiring a bank to disclose the source of information conveyed to customers are admissible as a general rule. The matter is within the Court's discretion. Exceptions exist for newspaper cases and matters of wide public interest, but where the plaintiff's financial standing is not of interest to the general public and interrogatories are put bona fide for the purposes of the pending action, the Court will order that they be answered.

Outcome

Application granted; defendants ordered to answer all interrogatories including those seeking disclosure of sources of information

Facts

The plaintiff, a merchant carrying on business at Nairobi, sued the defendants, a bank registered in England with a branch in Nairobi, for libel. The plaintiff alleged that on various dates the defendants falsely and maliciously made reports to customers in England stating that he was in financial difficulties, had been compelled to make an arrangement with creditors which he could not implement, and was untrustworthy and dishonest. The defendants admitted conveying information but denied it was false or malicious, claiming honest belief in the truth of their statements. The plaintiff applied for leave to deliver interrogatories requiring the defendants to disclose what information they possessed to justify the reports and the names of persons from whom information was obtained. The defendants objected to answering interrogatories seeking disclosure of their informants' names, arguing that banks are privileged and such communications are confidential.

Issues

  1. Whether interrogatories requiring a bank to disclose the source of information conveyed to its customers in a libel action are admissible.
  2. Whether the Court should exercise its discretion to compel the defendants to answer interrogatories regarding the names of persons from whom they obtained information about the plaintiff.

Orders

  • The defendants do answer each and every one of the interrogatories as framed.

Rules and key headnotes

Interrogatories — Libel Actions — Disclosure of Sources of Information
As a general rule, interrogatories put bona fide for the purposes of a pending libel action as to the sources of the defendant's information are admissible.
Interrogatories — Discretion of Court — Exceptions to General Rule
The admissibility of interrogatories as to sources of information is a matter within the discretion of the Court. Exceptions to the general rule of admissibility include newspaper cases and cases where the publication is of interest to a large number of the general public.
Libel — Malice — Relevance of Source of Information
Where malice is in issue in a libel action, the amount of information upon which the defendant acted and the means taken to ascertain the truth are legitimate subjects for interrogation. The character and position of persons from whom information was obtained is the best test of the value of that information and may be cogent evidence of malice.
Libel — Banks — Confidential Communications — No Absolute Privilege
Banks who supply confidential information regarding the financial stability of firms to their clients are not entitled to absolute privilege protecting them from disclosing the source of their information in libel proceedings where malice is alleged.

Cases cited (4)

  • Lyle-Samuel v Odhams [1920] 1 KB 135
  • Adams v Fisher (1914) 110 LT 37
  • Mackenzie v Steinkoff (1890) 6 TLR 141
  • White & Co v Credit Reform Association [1905] 1 KB 658

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

The original judgment as reported. Read the original PDF before relying on any passage.

Hirji v National Bank of India (CC. 81-1.932.) [1932] EACA 41 (1 January 1932)
Source: this page presents Wakilii’s issue analysis and metadata for a publicly reported Ugandan judgment. Any AI-generated summary is marked as such. Judgment text is sourced from the Uganda Legal Information Institute (ulii.org). Wakilii is not affiliated with ULII.