𝐒𝐩𝐞𝐜𝐢𝐚𝐥 𝐃𝐚𝐦𝐚𝐠𝐞𝐬 𝐦𝐮𝐬𝐭 𝐛𝐞 𝐏𝐫𝐨𝐯𝐞𝐝 𝐈𝐧𝐝𝐢𝐯𝐢𝐝𝐮𝐚𝐥𝐥𝐲, 𝐔𝐧𝐥𝐢𝐤𝐞 𝐆𝐞𝐧𝐞𝐫𝐚𝐥 𝐃𝐚𝐦𝐚𝐠𝐞𝐬, 𝐟𝐨𝐫 𝐰𝐡𝐢𝐜𝐡 𝐑𝐮𝐥𝐞 𝐨𝐟 𝐓𝐡𝐮𝐦𝐛 𝐢𝐬 𝐀𝐩𝐩𝐥𝐢𝐞𝐝 𝐢𝐧 𝐃𝐞𝐟𝐚𝐦𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐂𝐚𝐬𝐞𝐬: 𝐈𝐇𝐂

𝐒𝐩𝐞𝐜𝐢𝐚𝐥 𝐃𝐚𝐦𝐚𝐠𝐞𝐬 𝐦𝐮𝐬𝐭 𝐛𝐞 𝐏𝐫𝐨𝐯𝐞𝐝 𝐈𝐧𝐝𝐢𝐯𝐢𝐝𝐮𝐚𝐥𝐥𝐲, 𝐔𝐧𝐥𝐢𝐤𝐞 𝐆𝐞𝐧𝐞𝐫𝐚𝐥 𝐃𝐚𝐦𝐚𝐠𝐞𝐬, 𝐟𝐨𝐫 𝐰𝐡𝐢𝐜𝐡 𝐑𝐮𝐥𝐞 𝐨𝐟 𝐓𝐡𝐮𝐦𝐛 𝐢𝐬 𝐀𝐩𝐩𝐥𝐢𝐞𝐝 𝐢𝐧 𝐃𝐞𝐟𝐚𝐦𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐂𝐚𝐬𝐞𝐬: 𝐈𝐇𝐂

In a recent defamation case, Justice Mohsin Akhtar Kiyani of the Islamabad High Court has held that there are two kinds of damages which can be claimed in defamation cases by the aggrieved person: general damages and special damages. However, the threshold for the proof of both these types of defamation is different. The former is solely dependent on the discretion of the court and rule of thumb is applied while the latter must be proved individually through cogent evidence by the plaintiff. The claim of special damages if proved is to be awarded to the extent which it has been proved. This type of damages is out of the discretion of the court.

In the case in hand, the plaintiff’s claim for damages had been dismissed by the trial court and he was standing before the High Court in appeal against the judgment of the trial court. It was the claim of the plaintiff that the Daily Jang newspaper had published a news item in which his degree had been alleged to be fake. This news had been widely circulated including among his relatives, friends and colleagues etc. He further alleged that this news had tarnished his image as an honest officer of Pakistan Housing Foundation and thus he demanded apology and  damages from the newspaper.

The Court reached the conclusion that the newspaper had not verified the news of the fake degree neither from the university nor from the HEC. Further, the newspaper had also not contacted the plaintiff for the verification of the said news but it was published as it had been received. The Court did not see any claim of special damages in the case in hand and awarded only general damages to the plaintiff against the Daily Jang newspaper to the tune of 500000/PKR.

The award of general damages in the case in hand seems to be minimal, as only half million Rupees have been awarded. However, such judgments indicate that our jurisdiction is gradually becoming more defamation-cautious jurisdiction.

Click to Download