Wakilii

Anne Twinomugisha Muhairwe v Dean Luboowa Saava t-a TV10 GANO MAZIMA (Civil Suit 289 of 2025)

High Court · [2026] UGHCCD 209 · 2026 Judgment for Plaintiff AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
First instance civil suit for defamation proceeding ex parte after defendant failed to enter appearance
Decision
Judgment entered for the plaintiff with declaration of defamation, permanent injunction, order for public apology, and award of general damages

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

The High Court held that statements published by the defendant on his TikTok platform alleging that the plaintiff, Deputy Inspector General of Government, was corrupt, fraudulent, and unfit for public office were defamatory. The defendant admitted in a criminal plea bargain that the statements were false. The court awarded general damages of UGX 100,000,000, granted a permanent injunction restraining further defamatory publications, and ordered a public apology. The claim for exemplary damages was dismissed for lack of proof of profit motive.

Outcome

Judgment entered for the plaintiff with declaration of defamation, permanent injunction, order for public apology, and award of general damages

Facts

In July 2025, the defendant, operating a TikTok platform called TV10 GANO MAZIMA with over 300,000 followers, published statements in Luganda alleging that the plaintiff, Deputy Inspector General of Government, was corrupt and had received UGX 200 million from engineers on the Kaabong Road project. The defendant claimed the plaintiff sent her personal assistant Kakooza Savio to collect the money and was involved in fraudulent activities. The plaintiff denied all allegations. Kakooza Savio testified he was not the plaintiff's personal assistant and never collected any money. The defendant continued publishing the statements despite warnings. The defendant was effectively served with summons but failed to enter appearance or file a defence. In a separate criminal case (MAK-00-CR-CO-1635/2025), the defendant admitted in a plea bargain that the statements were false.

Issues

  1. Whether the impugned statements and/or publications are defamatory against the plaintiff.
  2. What remedies are available to the parties.

Orders

  • A declaration that the statements published by the defendant on his TV10 GANO MAZIMA TikTok page against the plaintiff were false and defamatory.
  • A permanent injunction restraining the defendant and his agents from making, uttering, publishing, or communicating any further defamatory statements against or about the plaintiff.
  • The defendant is directed to issue a public apology on his TV10 GANO MAZIMA TikTok page/platform where the defamatory statements were published.
  • An award of general damages in the sum of UGX 100,000,000 (Uganda Shillings One Hundred Million only) to the plaintiff.
  • Costs of the suit to the plaintiff.
  • Interest on the damages at court rate from the date of judgment until payment in full.

Rules and key headnotes

Defamation — Test for Defamatory Statement — Right-Thinking Members of Society
A statement is defamatory if it tends to lower the plaintiff in the estimation of right-thinking members of society generally, or if it exposes the plaintiff to public hatred, contempt or ridicule, or if it causes the plaintiff to be shunned or avoided.
Defamation — Professional Reputation — Imputation of Lack of Integrity
A person's reputation extends to their trade, business or profession, and words are defamatory if they impute lack of qualification, knowledge, skill, capacity, judgment or efficiency in the conduct of their professional activity.
Defamation — Burden of Proof — Ex Parte Proceedings
In defamation cases, the plaintiff bears the burden to prove on a balance of probabilities that the statements were defamatory. This burden does not become any less where the suit proceeds ex parte or where the defendant does not file a defence.
Defamation — General Damages — Compensatory Basis
In actions for defamation, general damages are assessed on a compensatory basis to restore the claimant, as far as money can do so, to the position they would have been in if the tort had not been committed. The award must compensate for damage to reputation, vindicate the claimant's good name, and take account of distress, hurt and humiliation caused by the defamatory publication.
Defamation — Assessment Factors — Gravity, Circulation, Vindication
In assessing damages for defamation, the court considers the gravity of the defamation (particularly where it touches the plaintiff's personal integrity and professional reputation), the extent of circulation of the publication, the element of vindication (especially where the defendant refuses to retract or apologise), and the motive and conduct of the defendant including whether driven by malice.
Defamation — Exemplary Damages — Requirement of Guilty Knowledge and Profit Motive
Exemplary damages in defamation can only be awarded if the claimant proves that the defendant, when making the publication, knew they were committing a tort or were reckless as to whether their action was tortious, and decided to publish because the prospects of material advantage outweighed the prospects of material loss. Absent evidence of actual profit from the publication, exemplary damages cannot be awarded.

Legislation cited (2)

Cases cited (24)

  • Alex Lutaaya Mukomazi v Dean Lubowa Saava (High Court Civil Suit No. 574 of 2024)
  • Afrofreight Forwarders Ltd v Shell (U) Ltd (Court of Appeal Civil Appeal No. 83 of 2009)
  • Sebanakita Godfrey v Fuelex (U) Ltd (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 4 of 2016)
  • Kamo Enterprises Ltd v Krystalline Salt Ltd (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 8 of 2018)
  • Haji Asuman Mutekanga v Equator Growers (U) Ltd (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 7 of 1995)
  • Sim v Stretch [1936] 2 All ER 1237
  • Parmiter v Coupland (1840) 6 M & W 105
  • Youssoupoff v Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Pictures Ltd (1934) 50 TLR 581
  • Drummond-Jackson v British Medical Association [1970] 1 All ER 1094
  • Access Bank Plc v Muhammad (2014) 6 NWLR (pt 1404) 613
  • John Patrick Machira v Wangethi Mwangi and Anor KLR 532
  • A.K. Oils & Fats (U) Ltd v Bidco Uganda Limited (High Court Civil Suit No. 715 of 2005)
  • Geoffrey Ssejjoba v Rev. Patrick Rwabigonji [1977] HCB 37
  • Okeny & 4 Ors v Odok (Civil Suit No. 12 of 2009) [2019] UGHCCD 55
  • Kemigisha v The Red Pepper Publications Ltd (Civil Suit No. 162 of 2012)
  • Monitor Publications Ltd v Ricky Nelson Asiimwe (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 16 of 2015)
  • Livingstone v Rawyards Coal Co (1880) 5 App Cas 25
  • John v MGN Ltd [1997] QB 586
  • Rantzen v Mirror Group Newspapers (1986) Ltd [1994] QB 670
  • Major Godfrey Segawa v The Editor, The Crusader Newspaper & Another (High Court Civil Suit No. 27 of 1992)
  • Sutcliffe v Pressdram Ltd [1991] 1 QB 153
  • Kiirya Hillary v The New Vision Printing & Publishing Company Ltd & Anor (Civil Suit No. 144 of 2007) [2009] UGHC 159
  • Chu v Apple Daily Ltd [2002] HKLRD 1
  • Cassell & Co Ltd v Broome [1972] AC 1027

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Anne Twinomugisha Muhairwe v Dean Luboowa Saava t-a TV10 GANO MAZIMA (Civil Suit 289 of 2025) [2026] UGHCCD 209 (24 June 2026)
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.