Wakilii

Alex Lutaaya Mukomazi v Dean Lubowa Saava and Another (Civil Suit 574 of 2024)

High Court · [2025] UGHCCD 244 · 2025 Judgment for Plaintiff AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
First instance civil suit for defamation and contempt of court
Decision
First defendant found liable for defamation and contempt of court; sentenced to imprisonment, ordered to pay damages, delete defamatory content, publish apology, and permanently restrained from further defamation. Second defendant's case dismissed for lack of capacity.

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

Held that the second defendant, an unincorporated business name, lacked capacity to be sued and the suit against it was dismissed. The first defendant's publications falsely accusing the plaintiff of fraud, theft, and embezzlement were defamatory, not protected by truth or fair comment, and made with malice. The first defendant was in contempt of court for continuing defamatory publications after being served with a restraining order. General damages of UGX 40,000,000 were awarded, the first defendant was sentenced to three months imprisonment for contempt, and ordered to delete all defamatory posts and publish a public apology for 30 days.

Outcome

First defendant found liable for defamation and contempt of court; sentenced to imprisonment, ordered to pay damages, delete defamatory content, publish apology, and permanently restrained from further defamation. Second defendant's case dismissed for lack of capacity.

Facts

The plaintiff, an advocate with 17 years of practice, sued the defendants for defamation after they published a series of investigative reports on their website and social media in December 2024. The publications accused him of fraud, theft, and embezzlement of UGX 11.8 billion from UNRA, labeling him a fraudster and thief. The plaintiff was facing criminal charges in the Anti-Corruption Court at the time of publication, but had not been convicted. The first defendant continued publishing defamatory content in January and February 2025 despite being served with a court order on 6 January 2025 restraining further defamatory statements. The plaintiff was later discharged from all corruption-related charges by the Director of Public Prosecutions. The second defendant was an unincorporated business name. The first defendant did not appear at the hearing despite being served with notices.

Issues

  1. Whether the second defendant can be sued in this matter.
  2. Whether the impugned statements and or publications are defamatory of the plaintiff.
  3. Whether the first defendant is in contempt of court.
  4. What remedies are available to the parties.

Orders

  • Suit against the second defendant dismissed for lack of capacity to be sued.
  • First defendant sentenced to 3 months in prison for contempt of court.
  • General damages awarded at UGX 40,000,000.
  • Interest on general damages at 6% per annum from the date of judgment until payment in full.
  • First defendant ordered to delete all defamatory posts made of the plaintiff and issue a public apology on their website tv10ganomazima.news and publish the same repeatedly every day for a period of 30 days with the site open for the public to read.
  • Permanent injunction restraining the first defendant by themselves, their agents and assignees from publishing further defamatory statements about the plaintiff.
  • Costs of the suit awarded to the plaintiff.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Capacity to Sue — Unincorporated Business Names
An unincorporated business name is not a legal person and lacks capacity to sue or be sued in its own name.
Defamation — Elements — Test for Defamatory Statement
A statement is defamatory if it reflects on a person's reputation and tends to lower him in the estimation of right-thinking members of society generally or tends to make them shun or avoid him. The test is objective, based on the view of the ordinary reasonable person who is not unduly suspicious or avid for scandal.
Defamation — Elements — Proof Required
To establish defamation, the plaintiff must prove that the defendant made a statement about the plaintiff to another, the statement was injurious to the plaintiff's reputation in the eyes of right-thinking members of society, the statement was false, and if the plaintiff is a public figure, the defendant made the false statement intentionally or with reckless disregard of the plaintiff's rights, and there are no applicable privileges or defences.
Defamation — Defence of Fair Comment — Requirements
Fair comment as a defence to defamation is only applicable if the words embraced honesty, relevance, and were free from malice and improper motive. Publications made with ill intention to excite the public against the plaintiff and expose him to hatred, contempt or ridicule cannot constitute fair comment.
Defamation — Falsity — Pending Criminal Charges
Where criminal prosecution has commenced against a person but the court has not pronounced itself on guilt, it is defamatory to state that the person has been found guilty or to refer to them as having committed the offence. The presumption of innocence applies until conviction is secured.
Contempt of Court — Elements — Knowledge of Order
For contempt of court to be established, there must be existence of a lawful order, the potential contemnor's knowledge of the order, and the potential contemnor's failure to comply with the order. A person who continues conduct prohibited by a court order after being served with that order is in contempt.
Defamation — Damages — Assessment Factors
In assessing damages for defamation, the court considers the injury done to the plaintiff's reputation and character, the plaintiff's wounded feelings, any insulting or malicious conduct on the part of the defendant, the social status of the defamed person, and the gravity or seriousness of the allegations made. Anyone who falsely accuses another of a heinous crime should be condemned heavily in damages.

Legislation cited (3)

Cases cited (8)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Alex Lutaaya Mukomazi v Dean Lubowa Saava and Another (Civil Suit 574 of 2024) [2025] UGHCCD 244 (24 November 2025)
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.