Sirisena v. Ginige – sllr 1992 volume 1 page 320

In the case between Sirisena (plaintiff, school principal) and Ginige (defendant, Education Officer), the court examined whether a defamation action could proceed when the plaint failed to set out the precise alleged defamatory words contained in an anonymous petition. It was held that the plaintiff’s claim was not maintainable due to the omission of the exact words, and that the defendant, having read the petition during a departmental inquiry in the course of official duties, was shielded by qualified privilege. The court reaffirmed the established principle that in actions for defamation, the specific words said to be defamatory must be clearly pleaded to afford the defendant adequate notice. Reliance was placed on multiple legal authorities, including English, South African, and local