Wakilii

Anne Twinomugisha Muhairwe v Dean Lubowa Ssava t-a TV10 Gano Mazima (Miscellaneous Application No. 610 of 2025)

High Court · [2025] UGHCCD 159 · 2025 Application Granted AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for temporary injunction arising from civil suit for defamation
Decision
Temporary injunction granted restraining respondent from publishing further defamatory statements pending determination of main suit

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 applicant established a prima facie case for defamation, would suffer irreparable injury to her reputation if the respondent continued publishing allegedly defamatory statements, and the balance of convenience favoured protecting her reputation. A temporary injunction was granted restraining the respondent from making, uttering, publishing or communicating further defamatory statements against the applicant pending final determination of the main suit. The right to freedom of expression under Article 29(1)(a) of the Constitution is not absolute and must be exercised without prejudicing the rights of others under Article 43(1).

Outcome

Temporary injunction granted restraining respondent from publishing further defamatory statements pending determination of main suit

Facts

The applicant is the Deputy Inspector General of Government of Uganda. Around July 2025, the respondent, using his business name TV10 Gano Mazima on TikTok, made several allegedly defamatory statements against the applicant. The statements portrayed the applicant as unfit to hold public office, corrupt, a law breaker, and a person of no moral standing. Despite warnings from the applicant and her lawyers, the respondent continued to publish defamatory statements. The applicant filed Civil Suit No. 289 of 2025 for defamation and brought this application for a temporary injunction to restrain further publications pending determination of the main suit. The respondent, though served, did not appear or file any affidavit in reply.

Issues

  1. Whether the applicant has established a prima facie case with probability of success.
  2. Whether the applicant would suffer irreparable injury if the temporary injunction is not granted.
  3. Whether the balance of convenience favours the grant of a temporary injunction.
  4. Whether a temporary injunction should be granted to restrain publication of allegedly defamatory statements pending determination of the main suit.

Orders

  • A temporary injunction doth issue restraining the Respondent, his agents, servants, or any persons acting under his instructions from making, further uttering, publishing, communicating any further defamatory statements against or about the Applicant, until the final determination of the main suit.
  • The costs of this application will be in the cause.

Rules and key headnotes

Temporary Injunctions — Requirements for Grant
Before granting a temporary injunction, an applicant must prove: (1) that the purpose is to preserve the status quo until the main suit is determined; (2) that the applicant has a prima facie case with probability of success; (3) that if the injunction is not granted, the applicant would suffer irreparable injury which damages cannot atone; and (4) if the court remains in doubt, it decides on the balance of convenience.
Temporary Injunctions — Prima Facie Case
A prima facie case means a serious triable issue. At the interlocutory stage, the court does not delve deep into the merits but determines that the claim is not frivolous or vexatious. The applicant need only prove that there is a serious issue to be determined at trial.
Affidavit Evidence — Effect of Failure to Reply
Where a respondent does not file an affidavit in reply to rebut the averments in the applicant's affidavit in support, the respondent implicitly admits those facts because he did not deny or contradict them.
Freedom of Expression — Limitation in Defamation Cases
The right to freedom of speech and expression under Article 29(1)(a) of the Constitution is not absolute. Article 43(1) provides that in the enjoyment of rights and freedoms, no person shall prejudice the fundamental or other human rights and freedoms of others or the public interest. The right to freedom of expression must be exercised in a manner that does not injure the rights of others, especially to dignity and reputation.
Defamation — Temporary Injunction — Irreparable Injury to Reputation
Reputation is all a person has and once injured it is very difficult to restore. A person's reputation is her property and more valuable than any other property. Where defamatory statements lower the standard of the applicant among right-thinking members of society and would negatively affect the applicant's personal life and professional capacity, irreparable injury is established for purposes of granting a temporary injunction.
Defamation — Temporary Injunction — Balance of Convenience
In defamation cases, the balance of convenience tilts in favour of the applicant whose reputation is injured and at risk of further damage. The right of expression does not extend to shield publications of a defamatory nature or those intended to sensationalise and malign the reputation of an individual.

Legislation cited (6)

Cases cited (11)

  • Rashida Abdul v Suleiman Adrisi (Miscellaneous Civil Application No. 11 of 2017)
  • Moses Kasozi v Muhammad Batte & 4 Ors
  • Daniel Mukwaya v Administrator General (High Court Civil Suit No. 630 of 1993)
  • Godfrey Kirurnira Kalule v The New Vision Printing Publishing Company Ltd and 4 Others (Miscellaneous Application No. 789 of 2020)
  • Noor Mohammed Janmohamed Vs Kassamali Virji [1953] 20 EACA 80
  • Geilla Vs Cassman Brown Co. Ltd [1973] E.A. 358
  • E.A. Industries Vs Traffords (1972) E.A. 420
  • Cleaver-Hume Ltd Vs British Tutorial College (Africa) Ltd [1975] 1EA 323
  • Badrudin and Another Vs Pyarali [1975] E.A. 271
  • Sengendo Vs Attorney General [1972] 1 E.A. 140
  • Buikwe Estate Coffee Works LTD & 2 Ors -Vs- S. Lutabi and Anor [1962] EA 328

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Anne Twinomugisha Muhairwe v Dean Lubowa Ssava t-a TV10 Gano Mazima (Miscellaneous Application No. 610 of 2025) [2025] UGHCCD 159 (12 September 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.