- J5 P168 allegedly holding clandestine meetings with other people whose names included the plaintiff. He observed that it was the plaintiff’s 3rd witness, Hon. Sonkotwe, who gave the charge letter to both respondents, with the intended motive for both respondents to inform the general public by publishing the same in their respective newspapers, in fulfilment of their duty to do so. He added that the question of whether the contents in the charge letter were true or not was neither here or there. That the newspaper articles were simply to inform the reading public about the fact that the appellant’s 3rd witness was charged with disciplinary charges by the M.M.D and the details of the charges levelled against him. As regards the 2nd respondent, the learned trial Judge further held that the appellant was stopped from suing the 2nd respondent after asking the 2nd respondent to apologise, which the 2nd defendant did, but without demanding also payment of damages by way of amends. As per amended memorandum of appeal, there are three grounds of appeal. The 1st ground is that the trial Court misdirected itself in law and in fact when it held that the 1st and 2nd respondents have a duty to inform the public on matters of public interest then they had a duty to make a full disclosure without due regard to the veracity and possible subsequent injury to third parties.