Wakilii

Construction Engineers & Builders Ltd v The New Vision Newspaper & Ors (Civil Suit No. 67 of 1991)

High Court · [1994] UGHC 31 · 1994 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 newspaper publications
Decision
Plaintiff awarded general damages of UGX 3,500,000 and costs

Observed later treatment

Cited — treatment unverified cited in 1 (treatment unverified) 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.

No adverse treatment recorded Cited 1 time with no adverse treatment recorded; not yet tested on the merits. 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 newspaper articles and cartoon were defamatory of the plaintiff construction company, falsely alleging corruption and substandard work. The defence of justification failed as the defendants did not prove the allegations substantially true. Fair comment succeeded only for the editorial. Qualified privilege did not apply as the occasion was not privileged. General damages of UGX 3,500,000 awarded.

Outcome

Plaintiff awarded general damages of UGX 3,500,000 and costs

Facts

The plaintiff, a construction company, entered a contract with African Textiles Mills (ATM) in 1983 to rehabilitate the factory, with government funding. After payment disputes and contract termination in 1985, the plaintiff sued ATM and the Attorney General. A consent judgment was entered in 1989 for UGX 257 million plus USD 159,321, and this sum was paid. The Solicitor General later demanded refund of alleged excess payment, claiming only UGX 8 million was due. Government officials were suspended and investigated. In November 1990, the New Vision published articles alleging government lost UGX 257 million in a corrupt deal involving inflated payments to the plaintiff for substandard work. The plaintiff sued for defamation.

Issues

  1. Whether the publications complained of are capable of being understood to bear the meaning ascribed to them in paragraph 8 of the plaint.
  2. Whether the publications are defamatory of the plaintiff.
  3. Whether the publications complained of are true in substance.
  4. Whether the publications complained of are fair comment on a matter of public interest made in good faith.
  5. Whether the publications were made on a privileged occasion without malice.
  6. What remedies is the plaintiff entitled to.

Orders

  • The defendants are ordered to pay the plaintiff general damages of UGX 3,500,000.
  • The defendants are ordered to pay the costs of the suit.

Rules and key headnotes

Defamation — Authority to Sue — Corporate Plaintiff — Whether Board Resolution Required
A resolution of shareholders or the board of directors is not necessary to clothe a sole director with authority to give instructions to a lawyer to institute an action in the name of a company. The authority to file a suit is a management matter that can be given by a single director, and it is sufficient if authority is given regardless of the form in which it was given.
Defamation — Construction of Words — Ordinary and Natural Meaning
In construing allegedly defamatory language, the whole publication must be taken into account and the words are to be taken in their most natural and obvious meaning in which those to whom they are published will be sure to understand them. The ordinary and natural meaning includes not only literal meaning but also any implied or inferred meaning that can be detected in the language used without requiring extrinsic facts beyond general knowledge.
Defamation — Defence of Justification — Burden of Proof
A defendant who sets up justification as a defence to an alleged libel bears the burden to prove that the story published is substantially true. The defendant does not have to prove every aspect of the statement but must show that it is true in substance. In the absence of evidence contradicting a valid consent judgment, a newspaper cannot prove its assertion that payment pursuant to that judgment was the result of a corrupt deal.
Defamation — Defence of Fair Comment — Requirements
For the defence of fair comment on a matter of public interest to succeed, the defendant must show that the words complained of are comment as opposed to statement of fact, fair comment on facts truly and accurately stated, and honest comment on a matter of public interest made without malice. The test for honesty is whether any fair man, however prejudiced, exaggerated or obstinate his views, would have said what the criticism has said.
Defamation — Qualified Privilege — Newspaper Publications
A privileged occasion arises where the person making the communication has a legal, social or moral duty to make it and the person to whom it is made has a corresponding interest or duty to receive it. Where a newspaper publishes information obtained through its own journalistic research rather than a specific request from a public authority, and the matter is of public interest but not of a public nature, the occasion is not privileged.
Defamation — Damages — Corporate Plaintiff — Special Damages
A company plaintiff can sue for defamation relating to its business and is entitled to general damages without proof of special damages. In a libel action, it is not necessary to prove special damages.

Legislation cited (1)

Cases cited (14)

  • Bugerere Coffee Growers Ltd v Sebaduka and Another (1970) SA 147
  • Walugembe Lugobe & Co Ltd v Zziwa (High Court Civil Suit No. 34-9 of 1967)
  • Nambera Trading Co Ltd v Yosufu Ssemanjje (1974) HCB 212
  • United Assurance Co Ltd v Attorney General (Court of Appeal No. 1 of 1986)
  • EMCO Plastica International Ltd v Freeberne (1971) EA 412
  • S & K Holdings v Throgmotem Publication Ltd (1972) 1 WLR 1036
  • Lewis v Daily Telegraph Ltd (1964) AC 234
  • Lyon v Daily Telegraph (1950) 1 All ER 449
  • Adam vs. Wards (191?) AC 509
  • Shah v. Uganda Augus
  • Mangena v Wright (1909) 2 KB 958
  • Allbutt v General Council of Education (1889) 23 QBD 400
  • D & L Caterer Ltd v D'Ajou (1945) KB 364
  • Neudegger v The Telecast Newspaper and Others (1988-90) HCB

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.

Construction Engineers & Builders Ltd v The New Vision Newspaper & Ors (Civil Suit No. 67 of 1991) [1994] UGHC 31 (10 June 1994)
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.