Wakilii

Kachontori v Kirunda (Civil Suit No. 62 of 2009)

High Court · [2012] UGHC 203 · 2012 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 radio broadcast
Decision
Judgment for Plaintiff with damages, permanent injunction and costs

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

Radio broadcast accusing a long-serving public officer of theft, corruption and embezzlement constituted libel where recordings preserved the defamatory words in permanent form. Defence of fair comment failed where defendant produced no evidence to support serious criminal allegations. Refusal to apologise and failed justification warranted substantial damages of UGX 45 million plus permanent injunction.

Outcome

Judgment for Plaintiff with damages, permanent injunction and costs

Facts

The Plaintiff, a Town Clerk with 33 years of public service, sued the Defendant who was Chairman of Jinja Central Division for defamation. On 29 March 2009, during a radio programme on FM Radio broadcast throughout Uganda and especially in Busoga Region, the Defendant allegedly uttered statements in Lusoga calling the Plaintiff a thief, embezzler and corrupt official unfit to hold public office. The Defendant also threatened to mobilise people to throw the Plaintiff in River Nile and appealed to voters in Mbarara not to elect the Plaintiff as Mayor. The broadcast was recorded on CDs. The Plaintiff's family and friends heard the broadcast from various parts of Uganda. Despite being given notice and opportunity to apologise, the Defendant refused. The Defendant did not appear at trial after multiple adjournments, and the matter proceeded exparte.

Issues

  1. Whether or not the statements were defamatory of the Plaintiff.
  2. Whether the statements constituted fair comment on matters of public interest.
  3. What remedies are available to the parties?

Orders

  • Judgment entered for the Plaintiff.
  • Defendant to pay general damages of UGX 45,000,000 to the Plaintiff.
  • Permanent injunction issued restraining the Defendant, his servants and agents from publishing further libel against the Plaintiff.
  • Costs of the suit awarded to the Plaintiff.
  • Interest awarded on the decretal sum at Court rate from date of judgment until payment in full.
  • Interest awarded on costs at Court rate from date of judgment until payment in full.

Rules and key headnotes

Defamation — Libel and Slander — Broadcast Defamation
A radio broadcast of defamatory words that is recorded in permanent form constitutes libel rather than slander, and may warrant substantial damages where the recording preserves the defamatory content for repeated dissemination.
Defamation — Fair Comment Defence — Burden of Proof
To succeed in a defence of fair comment, a defendant must show that each and every statement of fact in the words complained of was true; mere denial that the words have the meaning attributed to them cannot sustain the defence.
Defamation — Assessment of Damages — Aggravating Factors
Where a defendant falsely accuses another of heinous crimes, refuses to apologise despite being given opportunity to do so, and fails in a defence of justification, heavy damages may be awarded on that account. The offer of an apology is not a defence but it does mitigate damages.
Defamation — Assessment of Damages — Relevant Considerations
In assessing damages for defamation it is necessary to combine the social status of the defamed person with the gravity and seriousness of the allegations made. Once an ordinary person is defamed seriously and is shunned by the public, it does not matter whether he or she is of high or low status.
Defamation — Injunctive Relief — Permanent Injunction
A permanent injunction restraining further publication of defamatory statements may be granted where there is a substantial risk of occasioning the plaintiff further grave injustice, notwithstanding the constitutional freedom of expression.
Defamation — Malice — Evidence of Malice
A defendant's refusal to apologise after being given opportunity to do so through notice of intention to sue, coupled with vehement denial of liability, constitutes evidence of malice in making defamatory statements.

Legislation cited (1)

Cases cited (5)

  • Kanabo v Chief Editor of Ngabo Newspapers & Others
  • Khasakhala v Aurali & Others [1995-98] 1 EA 117
  • Figueredo v Editor of Sunday Nation & Others [1968] 1 EA 501
  • Alowo v AG [1972] 1 EA 311
  • Khasakhala v Aurali & Others [1995-98] 1 EA 112

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Kachontori v Kirunda (Civil Suit No. 62 of 2009) [2012] UGHC 203 (2 October 2012)
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.