Wakilii

Brigade Distillers Ltd v Vision Group of Companies (Bukedde TV) (Civil Suit No. 409 of 2019)

High Court · [2022] UGHCCD 335 · 2022 Preliminary Objection Upheld — Suit Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
First instance civil suit for defamation dismissed on preliminary objection for failure to disclose a cause of action
Decision
Suit dismissed on preliminary objection for failure to disclose a cause of action

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

A plaint in defamation must set out the actual words complained of verbatim. Where the defamatory words are in Luganda, they must be followed by a literal English translation in accordance with Article 6 of the Constitution and Section 88 of the Civil Procedure Act, which establish English as the official language of courts. The plaintiff's failure to provide an English translation of the Luganda words rendered the plaint defective and disclosing no cause of action.

Outcome

Suit dismissed on preliminary objection for failure to disclose a cause of action

Facts

Brigade Distillers Ltd sued Vision Group of Companies (Bukedde TV) for defamation arising from a bulletin aired on 3 July 2019 on Bukedde TV's programme Agataliko Mutuntu. The plaintiff alleged that the defendant broadcast a statement that the plaintiff had failed to pay its workers' wages. The bulletin was also aired on the defendant's social media and YouTube channels. The plaintiff claimed that as a result, its sales dropped drastically as consumers turned to other liquor brands. The plaintiff sought a permanent injunction, public apology, general and exemplary damages, interest, and costs. The defendant raised a preliminary objection that the plaint disclosed no cause of action in defamation.

Issues

  1. Whether the plaint disclosed a cause of action in defamation where the alleged defamatory words were stated in Luganda without an English translation.

Orders

  • Paragraph 4 of the plaint containing the alleged defamatory words struck out.
  • Plaint rejected for disclosing no cause of action.
  • Preliminary objection upheld.
  • Suit dismissed with costs to the defendant.

Rules and key headnotes

Defamation — Pleading Requirements — Statement of Defamatory Words
In cases of defamation, the actual words complained of must be set out in the plaint verbatim; failure to do so leaves the plaint with no cause of action.
Pleadings — Language Requirements — Translation of Non-English Words
Where defamatory words are published in a language other than English, those words must appear in the plaint in the original language followed by a literal translation into English, in accordance with Article 6 of the Constitution and Section 88 of the Civil Procedure Act which establish English as the official language of courts.
Rejection of Plaint — Failure to Disclose Cause of Action
Under Order 7 Rule 11(a) of the Civil Procedure Rules, a plaint that discloses no cause of action must be rejected.

Legislation cited (4)

Cases cited (9)

  • Katende Dirisa v David Buryo and 6 others (High Court Civil Suit No. 81 of 2013)
  • John Kizito v The Red Pepper Publication Limited (High Court Civil Suit No. 624 of 2016)
  • Nkalubo v Kibirige [1973] EA 102
  • Cooke v Gull LR 8 Q.B. 116
  • Read v Brown [1] Q.B.D. P.31
  • Tororo Cement Co. Ltd v Fronkina International Ltd (Court of Appeal Civil Appeal No. 21 of 2001)
  • Collins v Jones [1955] 1 QB 564
  • De Souza v Zenith Printing Works, Kenya C.C. 149 of 1959
  • Nkalubo v Kibirige (Court of Appeal Civil Appeal No. 32 of 1973)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Brigade Distillers Ltd v Vision Group of Companies (Bukedde TV) (Civil Suit No. 409 of 2019) [2022] UGHCCD 335 (19 July 2022)
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.