Wakilii

Francis Lukooya Mukoome & anoer v The Editor in Chief Bukedde News paper & 2 oers (Civil Suit No. 351 of 2007)

High Court · [2010] UGHC 62 · 2010 Judgment for Defendant AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
First instance civil suit for defamation claiming general, aggravated, and exemplary damages, injunction, interest, and costs
Decision
Defamation claim dismissed; no damages or injunction awarded to plaintiffs

Observed later treatment

Treatment recorded in citing cases applied in 1 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.

Good law Followed in 0 cases and applied in 1 case, with no adverse treatment recorded. Citations rising — 4 citing cases on record, 4 in the most recent three data years. 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

The High Court dismissed the plaintiffs' defamation claim, holding that the defendants proved the truth of the publications. The newspaper articles reporting that a complainant had alleged the first plaintiff eloped with his wife were accurate accounts of a police complaint. The court found that the plaintiffs' relationship was common knowledge in Mukono District and that the second plaintiff had misrepresented the facts concerning her prior relationship and marriage. The publications were not defamatory because they did not tend to lower the plaintiffs in the estimation of right-thinking members of society. Each party was ordered to bear its own costs.

Outcome

Defamation claim dismissed; no damages or injunction awarded to plaintiffs

Facts

The first plaintiff was LC5 Chairman of Mukono District and the second plaintiff was an LC5 Councillor. Isaac Mukasa, who had lived with the second plaintiff from 1996 and had two children with her, complained to CID Headquarters that the first plaintiff had eloped with his wife. The first plaintiff was summoned to CID on 27 April 2007. The defendants published articles in Bukedde Newspaper reporting Mukasa's complaint. The second plaintiff then filed a divorce petition in Luwero Chief Magistrate's Court which declared her purported marriage to Mukasa a nullity on 2 May 2007. During the suit, Mukasa entered a consent judgment with the plaintiffs stating his allegations were false. A district councillor testified that the two plaintiffs' marital relationship was common knowledge in Mukono and that the first plaintiff had approached her to pay funds to suppress the publication.

Issues

  1. Whether the articles/stories were defamatory of the plaintiffs.
  2. Whether the publications complained of were true or fair comments on a matter of public interest.
  3. Whether the plaintiffs suffered any loss, damage or injury of reputation.

Orders

  • Suit dismissed.
  • Each party to bear its own costs.

Rules and key headnotes

Defamation — Test for Defamatory Statement — Whether Words Lower Plaintiff in Estimation of Right-Thinking Members of Society
A statement is defamatory if it tends to lower the plaintiff in the estimation of right-thinking members of society generally. The conventional phrase 'exposing the plaintiff to hatred, ridicule and contempt' is too narrow. The test is objective and asks whether the words would cause right-thinking members of society to think less of the plaintiff.
Defamation — Defence of Justification — Burden of Proof on Defendant to Prove Truth
If words are defamatory, the law presumes they are false. The onus of proving justification rests on the defendant who must plead and prove that the words published were true.
Defamation — Fair Comment — Defence Requires Comment on Matter of Public Interest Based on True Facts
Fair comment is a defence to defamation where the statement was fair comment on a matter of public interest. The facts on which the comment is based must be true and the comment must be fair. Any honest expression of opinion can be fair comment, but remarks inspired by personal spite and mere abuse are not protected. The judge decides whether the matter is one of public interest.
Credibility of Witnesses — Prior Inconsistent Statements — Effect on Credibility
A witness who swears the contrary of what they stated on a previous occasion is not worthy of belief. Where a party contradicts on oath a statement they made in an earlier affidavit, they cannot be regarded as a credible witness.
Use of Affidavits in Subsequent Proceedings — Admissibility Against Party Who Made It
An affidavit in one proceeding is admissible in evidence in a subsequent proceeding as proof of the facts stated therein, against the party who made the affidavit or on whose behalf it was made, on it being shown that the party knowingly made use of it.
Costs — Court's Discretion to Depart from General Rule — Winning Party Not Awarded Costs Due to Conduct
The general rule is that the loser pays the winner's costs, but this is subject to the court's discretion. A winning party may not be awarded costs where the peculiarities of the case and each party's conduct warrant departure from the usual rule. Where defendants failed to seek plaintiffs' comment before publication despite knowing them to be public figures, the court may order each party to bear its own costs notwithstanding the defendants' success.

Legislation cited (2)

Cases cited (5)

  • AK Oils & Fats (U) Ltd v Bidco Uganda Limited (High Court Civil Suit No. 715 of 2005)
  • Sim v Stretch [1939] 2 All ER 1237
  • Panyahululu Co Ltd v New Ocean Transporters Co Ltd (High Court Civil Suit No. 523 of 2006)
  • Kabenge v Mpalanyi (Civil Appeal No. B56 of 1962)
  • Dering v Uris [1964] 2 All ER 660

Cases citing this judgment (3)

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.

Francis Lukooya Mukoome & anoer v The Editor in Chief Bukedde News paper & 2 oers (Civil Suit No. 351 of 2007) [2010] UGHC 62 (2 November 2010)
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.