Wakilii

Oboth v The New Vision Printing & Publishing Cooperation [1991] UGSC 7

Supreme Court · 1991 Appeal Allowed ✦ AI-generated summary ↓ Download
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Appeal to the Supreme Court against the quantum of damages in a defamation suit decided in the High Court
Decision
Appeal allowed; general damages increased from Shs 300,000 to Shs 500,000 with costs to the appellant

The full judgment

Read the complete, verbatim text of this judgment.

Sign in to read the full judgment

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

The Supreme Court dismissed the claim for punitive or exemplary damages, holding that the single, unrepeated publication was not so outrageous as to warrant them, and that failure to apologise or to defend the suit was no ground for such an award. However, it found the trial judge had wrongly taken the appellant's humble origins into account when assessing general damages, which should consider only the plaintiff's status at the time of defamation. The Court allowed the appeal, set aside the award of Shs 300,000 and substituted Shs 500,000 in general damages, with costs.

Facts

The respondent, a statutory corporation, published an article in its newspaper, the New Vision, on 8 February 1989 reporting that two former officials of Wankoko Co-operative Society, including the appellant, its secretary-manager, had illegally sold the society's land without the knowledge or consent of its members or the Ministry. In fact the appellant, who had been seconded to the indebted society, had placed the proposal to sell the society's building before its Executive Committee and the parent Ministry, both of which resolved that the building be sold for at least Shs 75,000,000 to settle a bank debt of about Shs 26,000,000. The trial judge accepted this unchallenged evidence, found the article devoid of truth, and held it defamatory of the appellant. The respondent was served but chose not to defend the suit; interlocutory judgment was entered and the matter set down for formal proof and assessment of damages, in which the trial judge awarded Shs 300,000 general damages and declined punitive damages.

Issues

  1. Whether the appellant was entitled to punitive or exemplary damages for the defamatory newspaper publication.
  2. Whether the general damages of Shs 300,000 awarded by the trial judge were inadequate and ought to be increased.

Orders

  • Appeal allowed.
  • Award of Shs 300,000 general damages set aside and substituted with an award of Shs 500,000.
  • Costs of the appeal and in the lower court awarded to the appellant.

Key headnotes

Defamation — Exemplary/Punitive Damages — Purpose and basis of award
Punitive or exemplary damages may be awarded not merely to compensate the plaintiff but to punish the defendant and mark the outrageous nature of his conduct, given without reference to any proved actual loss; the court is concerned not with the defendant's conduct per se but with its effect on the plaintiff's feelings and pride.
Defamation — Exemplary Damages — Single, unrepeated publication
Where a defamatory article is published only once, in language that is not violent, and is not persisted in or repeated, the publication is not so outrageous as to warrant punitive or exemplary damages.
Defamation — Exemplary Damages — Apology and conduct of the defence
A defendant's failure to apologise is not a good reason for awarding aggravated damages, and a defendant should not be punished merely for declining to defend a suit it has no defence to.
Defamation — General Damages — Factors relevant to assessment
In assessing general damages for defamation the court considers the status of the plaintiff at the time he was defamed and the estimation in which he was held; the plaintiff's humble origins are immaterial and ought not to reduce the award.
Defamation — General Damages — Appellate increase of award
An appellate court will increase an award of general damages where the trial judge acted on a wrong principle, such as taking irrelevant matters into account in fixing the quantum.

Legislation cited (2)

  • Rules of the Supreme Court r.84(1)
  • Co-operative Societies Act 1972

Cases cited (3)

  • Davies v Shah (1957) E.A. 352
  • E.A. Newspapers v Opondo (1974) E.A. 36
  • Neudegger v The Telecast Newspaper H.C.C.S. No. 754/88
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.