Wakilii

Amos Twinomujuni v The Attorney General & Another (CIVIL Suit No. 0413 Of 2005) (CIVIL Suit No. 0413 of 2005)

High Court · [2009] UGHC 145 · 2009 Judgment for Plaintiff AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
First instance civil suit for defamation arising from statements made at a public meeting and published in a newspaper
Decision
Judgment entered for the plaintiff with damages, permanent injunction, interest, and costs awarded against the defendants

Observed later treatment

Treatment recorded in citing cases followed in 1 Sequitur — Uganda’s citator · Derived from citing cases in the Wakilii corpus — not an assertion that this case is good law.

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.

Good law Followed in 1 case and applied in 0 cases, with no adverse treatment recorded. Derived from citing cases in the Wakilii corpus — a deterministic signal, not legal advice.

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 statements made by the 2nd defendant, the Resident District Commissioner, at a public meeting and published in Orumuri Newspaper were defamatory of the plaintiff, a Justice of the Court of Appeal. The statements imputed corruption, dishonesty, and unethical conduct to the plaintiff by alleging he colluded with litigants to decide cases in their favour and share compensation. The plaintiff was awarded compensatory and exemplary damages of UGX 20 million jointly and severally against the defendants.

Outcome

Judgment entered for the plaintiff with damages, permanent injunction, interest, and costs awarded against the defendants

Facts

The plaintiff, a Justice of the Court of Appeal, sued the defendants for defamation arising from statements made by the 2nd defendant, the Resident District Commissioner for Kabale, at a public meeting on 29 June 2004 attended by over 600 people in the plaintiff's home area. The 2nd defendant stated that judges, including the plaintiff specifically named, were staunch DP supporters who colluded with DP President Paul Semogerere to decide cases against the government and share compensation money. These statements were also published in the Orumuri Newspaper. The plaintiff testified that the statements portrayed him as corrupt, dishonest, and unethical, damaging his reputation among colleagues, friends, and community members who previously held him in high esteem. The defendants filed a general denial but failed to appear at trial, and judgment was entered exparte.

Issues

  1. Whether the 2nd defendant in his address to the LCs on 29/6/2004 made any reference to the plaintiff.
  2. If so, whether the reference was defamatory of the plaintiff.
  3. What remedies are available to the parties.

Orders

  • Compensatory general damages, inclusive of exemplary damages, of Twenty (20) Million shillings jointly and severally against the defendants.
  • A permanent injunction against the 2nd defendant restraining him from any future defamatory publication against the plaintiff.
  • Interest on the amounts above at court rate from the date of judgment till payment in full.
  • Costs of the suit to the plaintiff.

Rules and key headnotes

Tort Law — Defamation — Test for defamatory meaning
A defamatory imputation is one to a man's discredit, or which tends to lower him in the estimation of others, or to expose him to hatred, contempt or ridicule or to injure his reputation in his office, trade or profession. The standard of opinion is that of right-thinking people generally. To be defamatory an imputation need have no actual effect on a person's reputation; the law looks only to its tendency.
Tort Law — Defamation — Meaning of words complained of — Natural and ordinary meaning
Where words complained of are defamatory in their natural and ordinary meaning, the plaintiff need prove nothing more than their publication. The onus will then lie on the defendant to prove from the circumstances in which the words were used, or from the manner of their publication, that the words would not be understood by reasonable men to convey the imputation suggested by the mere consideration of the words themselves.
Tort Law — Defamation — Defamation of public officers — Imputation of corrupt or dishonest conduct
It is defamatory to impute to a man in any office, any corrupt, dishonest, or fraudulent conduct or other misconduct or inefficiency in it, or any unfitness or want of ability to discharge his duties, and this is so whether the office be public or private.
Tort Law — Damages in defamation — Assessment principles
The successful plaintiff in a defamation action is entitled to recover, as general compensatory damages, such sum as will compensate him for the wrong he has suffered. That sum must compensate for the damage to his reputation, vindicate his good name, and take account of the distress, hurt and humiliation which the defamatory publication caused. Compensatory damages in libel are at large, and the process of assessment is essentially a matter of impression and not addition.
Tort Law — Damages in defamation — Factors to be considered
In assessing damages, the court is entitled to take into account the conduct of the plaintiff, his position and standing, the nature of the libel, mode and extent of publication, absence and refusal of any retraction or apology, and the whole conduct of the defendant from the time when the libel was published down to the very moment of the verdict.
Civil Procedure — Exparte proceedings — Conduct justifying exparte hearing
Where a defendant files a defence but fails to appear at trial despite the hearing date having been fixed in their presence, the court may proceed to hear the case exparte.

Cases cited (12)

  • Morgan v Odhams Press [1970] ALL ER 544
  • Onama v Uganda Argus (1969) EA 92
  • Scott v Sampson (1882) 8 QBD 503
  • Biwott v Clays Ltd (2002) 2 EA 336
  • Machira v Mwangi (2001) 1 EA 110
  • Nekemia Matembe and Another v Teddy Sezzi Cheeye and Another (Civil Suit No. 1047 of 1995)
  • Gordon Wavamunno v Teddy Ssezi Cheeye (HCCS No. 651 of 1995)
  • Hon. Justice Lugayizi Sempa v Teddy Ssezi Cheeye and Uganda Confidential Ltd (HCCS No. 644 of 2001)
  • Ntabgoba v The Editor in Chief The New Vision and Another (HCCS No. 113 of 2004)
  • John v MGN Ltd [1996] 2 ALL ER 35
  • Cassell & Co Ltd v Broome [1972] ALL ER 801
  • Broome v Cassell [1972] AC 1125

Cases citing this judgment (1)

How later Ugandan judgments in the Wakilii corpus have cited this case. Treatment labels come from Sequitur — Uganda’s citator — each backed by a verbatim span from the citing judgment, and are not an assertion that this case is, or is not, good law.

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Amos Twinomujuni v The Attorney General & Another (CIVIL Suit No. 0413 Of 2005) (CIVIL Suit No. 0413 of 2005) [2009] UGHC 145 (22 January 2009)
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.