Wakilii

David Opwonya, Andrew Ajure v Attorney General & anoer (Civil Suit No.10 Of 2007) (Civil Suit No.10 of 2007)

High Court · [2008] UGHC 136 · 2008 Judgment for Plaintiffs AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
First instance civil suit for defamation damages arising from radio broadcast
Decision
Plaintiffs succeeded against the second defendant with damages and costs; suit dismissed against the first defendant who was awarded 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

In a defamation action arising from a radio broadcast alleging embezzlement and financial impropriety, the High Court held that the words broadcast were defamatory as they portrayed the plaintiffs as thieves and criminals unfit for public office. The court found the defences of justification and fair comment unavailable where the defendant adduced no evidence of truth and municipal council minutes did not support the broadcast allegations. The first plaintiff was awarded UGX 7,000,000 and the second plaintiff UGX 5,000,000 in general damages. Liability was established only against the second defendant who edited and broadcast the words; the Attorney General was found not liable.

Outcome

Plaintiffs succeeded against the second defendant with damages and costs; suit dismissed against the first defendant who was awarded costs

Facts

On 24 January 2004, Radio Mega broadcast a news item edited by the second defendant stating that David Opwonya (Deputy Town Clerk) and Andrew Ajure (Municipal Cashier) of Gulu Municipal Council, along with two other officials, had been recommended for suspension for causing financial loss of over UGX 23 million through improper handling of funds from hiring out a cess pool emptier truck. The broadcast alleged they collected UGX 630,000 using unofficial receipts, spent UGX 250,000 without authority, pocketed over UGX 3.5 million, and failed to collect over UGX 19 million. Both plaintiffs heard the broadcast and were contacted by family and friends about it. The first plaintiff obtained a print of the news item from Radio Mega. The plaintiffs testified the allegations were false and were never discussed in Gulu Municipal Council. Minutes of the council meeting of 24 January 2004 made no mention of the matters alleged in the broadcast. The defendants did not appear at the hearing despite proper notice.

Issues

  1. Whether the second defendant broadcast the words complained of touching the plaintiffs.
  2. Whether the words complained of were defamatory of the plaintiffs.
  3. Whether the defences of justification and fair comment are available to defendants.
  4. Whether the defendants are jointly and/or severally liable to the plaintiffs.
  5. Whether the suit of the plaintiffs is time barred.
  6. What are the remedies available.

Orders

  • Judgment entered for the plaintiffs against the second defendant.
  • First plaintiff awarded UGX 7,000,000 as general damages.
  • Second plaintiff awarded UGX 5,000,000 as general damages.
  • Damages to carry interest at the court rate from date of judgment until payment in full.
  • Suit dismissed as against the first defendant.
  • Plaintiffs awarded costs of the suit as against the second defendant.
  • First defendant awarded costs of the dismissed suit jointly and/or severally as against the plaintiffs.

Rules and key headnotes

Defamation — Test for Defamatory Statement — Reasonable Person Standard
A defamatory statement is one that tends to lower the reputation of someone in the eyes or opinion of the right thinking members of society, and the test is whether the words complained of would tend to lower the reputation of the plaintiff in the opinion of right thinking persons, assessed by the general impression the words are likely to create in the minds of reasonable persons.
Defamation — Imputation of Criminal Conduct — Defamatory Per Se
Words that impute commission of criminal offences including causing financial loss, stealing, and embezzlement are defamatory by their very nature as they portray the plaintiff as a thief, criminal, and untrustworthy person unfit for public office.
Defamation — Defence of Justification — Burden of Proof on Defendant
The defences of justification and fair comment require the defendant to prove that the words complained of are true and devoid of falsehood and malice, with justification being a technical word for truth, and the onus of proof rests on the defendant.
Defamation — Fair Comment Defence — Requirements of Truth and Public Interest
For the defence of fair comment to succeed in defamation, the words complained of must be true and must be comments which are fair on matters of public interest.
Defamation — Liability of Editor — Broadcasting False Allegations
A news editor who edits and allows to be broadcast defamatory words without evidence of their truth is liable in defamation where uncontroverted evidence establishes the editor's role in the broadcast.
General Damages in Defamation — Factors Affecting Assessment
In assessing general damages for defamation, the court considers the plaintiff's status and responsibility in society, educational qualifications, professional standing, family circumstances, the reach of the defamatory publication, repetition of the defamatory words, absence of apology, and comparable awards in prior cases.

Legislation cited (1)

Cases cited (4)

  • East African Standard v Gitau (1970) EA 678
  • Charles Sabiti and Others v Teddy Seezi Cheeye (High Court Civil Suit No. 516 of 1997)
  • John Nagenda v Editor of The Monitor and Another (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 5 of 1994)
  • Figuerado v Editor, Sunday Nation (1968) EA 50

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.

David Opwonya, Andrew Ajure v Attorney General & anoer (Civil Suit No.10 Of 2007) (Civil Suit No.10 of 2007) [2008] UGHC 136 (27 November 2008)
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.