Wakilii

Basajjabaka v MTN Uganda Ltd (HCCS. NO. 100 OF 2012)

High Court · [2018] UGHCCD 22 · 2018 Judgment for Plaintiff AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
First instance civil suit for infringement of right to privacy
Decision
Plaintiff's claim succeeded with nominal damages, permanent injunction, interest, and costs awarded.

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 although photographing the plaintiff in a public space did not infringe his right to privacy, publishing his image on a commercial billboard without consent violated his privacy rights under Article 27 of the Constitution read with Article 17 of the ICCPR. The court awarded nominal damages of UGX 40,000,000 and issued a permanent injunction restraining further use of the plaintiff's image.

Outcome

Plaintiff's claim succeeded with nominal damages, permanent injunction, interest, and costs awarded.

Facts

In 2010, the plaintiff, a teacher, discovered that his photograph appeared on a large billboard at Entebbe International Airport advertising MTN's services. The photograph was taken in a public street and showed the plaintiff along with three other people and vehicles. The plaintiff alleged he had not consented to the photograph being taken or used for commercial purposes. He testified that colleagues informed him about the billboard and he personally observed it during travels in 2011. The defendant admitted owning the billboard but contended the plaintiff's image was not easily discernible and that use of an image captured in public space was not unlawful. The billboard was removed after the plaintiff complained.

Issues

  1. Whether the plaintiff has a cause of action against the defendant.
  2. Whether the billboard at Entebbe International Airport contained the plaintiff's image between 2010-2012.
  3. Whether the plaintiff's constitutional right to privacy was infringed by the defendant.
  4. What remedies are available to the plaintiff.

Orders

  • Nominal damages of UGX 40,000,000 awarded to the plaintiff.
  • Permanent injunction issued restraining the defendant from further use of the plaintiff's image on the billboard or any other form of publication.
  • Interest at 8% per annum on damages from date of judgment until payment in full.
  • Costs of the suit awarded to the plaintiff.

Rules and key headnotes

Constitutional Law — Right to Privacy — Photographs in Public Space — Publication Without Consent
The right to privacy under Article 27 of the Constitution, read together with Article 17 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, extends to protect against arbitrary or unlawful interference with privacy even when a photograph is taken in a public space, and publication of such photograph without consent for commercial purposes constitutes an infringement of that right.
Constitutional Law — Right to Privacy — Implied Consent to Photographing — Publication Without Consent
A person in a public space impliedly consents to the risk of being photographed, but such implied consent does not extend to the commercial publication of that photograph without express consent.
Constitutional Law — Right to Privacy — Balancing with Freedom of Expression
Where the exercise of the right to freedom of expression through commercial advertising prejudices another person's right to privacy by using their image without consent, the right to privacy outweighs the right to freedom of expression.
Constitutional Law — Right to Privacy — Incidental Capture — Relevance of Innocence of Use
It is irrelevant that the use of a person's image in commercial advertising was innocent or that the person was not the target of the photographer; a person may object to publication of a photograph in which he is the subject even if the content is entirely innocuous and non-derogatory.
Damages — Infringement of Right to Privacy — Nominal Damages
Where a plaintiff suffers only infringement of privacy rights per se without demonstrable harm such as embarrassment, financial loss, or risk to life, nominal damages are appropriate rather than substantial compensatory or punitive damages.

Legislation cited (3)

Cases cited (8)

  • Sikuku v Uganda Baati Ltd (HCCS No. 298 of 2012)
  • Weller v Associated Newspapers Ltd [2016] 3 All ER 357
  • Campbell v MGN Ltd [2004] 2 AC 457
  • Asege Catherine v Opportunity Bank (U) Ltd (HCCS No. 756 of 2013)
  • Hosking v Runting [2004] 2 LRC 65
  • Murray v Harringay Arena [1951] 2 All ER 533
  • Charles Onyango Obbo v Attorney General (SCCA No. 2 of 2002)
  • Robert Coussens v Attorney General (SCCA No. 8 of 1999)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Basajjabaka v MTN Uganda Ltd (HCCS. NO. 100 OF 2012) [2018] UGHCCD 22 (26 March 2018)
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.