Wakilii

Kebirungi v Mireku (Civil Suit 184 of 2022)

High Court · [2025] UGHCCD 30 · 2025 Judgment for Plaintiff AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
First instance civil suit for defamation heard ex parte after defendant failed to file defence or attend hearing
Decision
Judgment entered for the Plaintiff with damages 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

Held that statements published by the defendant on a university alumni WhatsApp group accusing the plaintiff of witchcraft, evil family, ruining the defendant's life over ten years, and being a masquerading Christian had the tendency to lower the plaintiff's image and self-esteem before her colleagues and were defamatory. General damages of UGX 5,000,000 awarded. Exemplary damages of UGX 500,000 awarded to punish reckless conduct where defendant persisted in attacks despite plaintiff's silence and colleagues' calls to desist. Plaintiff proved defamation but failed to lead evidence of quantum of injury.

Outcome

Judgment entered for the Plaintiff with damages and costs

Facts

The Plaintiff and Defendant were classmates at Makerere University Institute of Statistics & Applied Economics (2001-2004). After graduation, a WhatsApp group of about 54 alumni was created. On 7-8 June 2022, the Defendant published multiple statements on the group accusing the Plaintiff of taking UGX 2,000 and using it for witchcraft to ruin the Defendant's life over ten years, of having an evil family, of being a masquerading Christian who infiltrated the Defendant's family with ulterior motives, of placing items on the Defendant's mother's grave, and of causing harm warranting threats of public exposure and ruin. The Plaintiff, a Principal Economist with the Ministry of Finance, Planning & Economic Development, sued for defamation. The Defendant neither filed a defence nor attended court. The matter proceeded ex parte.

Issues

  1. Whether the Defendant's published statements on the WhatsApp group were defamatory against the Plaintiff?
  2. What remedies are available to the parties?

Orders

  • The Defendant be and is hereby ordered to pay UGX 5,000,000 (five million Uganda shillings only) to the Plaintiff as general damages.
  • The Defendant be and is hereby ordered to pay to the Plaintiff UGX 500,000 (five hundred thousand Uganda shillings only) as exemplary damages.
  • The Defendant pays costs of this suit.

Rules and key headnotes

Defamation — Elements — Definition of Defamatory Statement
A defamatory statement is one which tends to lower a person in the estimation of right-thinking members of society generally, or which tends to make them shun or avoid that person, and which has a tendency to injure the reputation of the person to whom it refers by causing him to be regarded with feelings of hatred, contempt, ridicule, fear, dislike and disesteem.
Defamation — Elements — Proof Required
In defamation, the plaintiff must prove that the defendant made a statement about the plaintiff to another; the statement was injurious to the plaintiff's reputation in the eyes of right-thinking members of society; the statement was false; and if the plaintiff is a public figure or was involved in a newsworthy event, the defendant made the false statement intentionally or with reckless disregard of the plaintiff's rights; and there are no applicable privileges or defences.
Defamation — Test — General Impression on Right-Thinking Person
In defamation, the test is the general impression of the words on the right-thinking person and it is from that perspective that the words are to be considered before determining whether they are defamatory or not. The determination depends on answering the question whether the words tend to lower the plaintiff in the estimation of right-thinking members of society.
Damages — General Damages — Assessment
General damages are awarded in the discretion of court to compensate the aggrieved fairly for the inconvenience accrued as a result of the actions of the defendant. It is the duty of the claimant to plead and prove that there were damages, losses or injuries suffered as a result of the defendant's actions. The object of the award is to give the plaintiff compensation for the damage, loss or injury suffered, and a party claiming damages should lead evidence or give an indication of quantum.
Damages — Exemplary Damages — Purpose and Award
Exemplary or punitive damages are awarded to punish the defendant for outrageous behaviour and are damages awarded to a plaintiff in excess of compensatory damages in order to punish the defendant for a reckless or willful act. The rationale is not to enrich the plaintiff but to punish the defendant and deter him from repeating his conduct.
Costs — Costs Follow the Event
The award of costs is in the discretion of court and costs shall follow the event unless for good reasons court directs otherwise. The phrase costs follow the event means that an award of costs will generally flow with the result of litigation, the successful party being entitled to an order for costs against the unsuccessful party.

Legislation cited (2)

Cases cited (10)

  • Ssejjoba Geoffrey v Rev. Rwabigonji Patrick [1977] HCB 37
  • Kisaakye v Kadaama (Civil Suit No. 2017)
  • Ssonko Gerald v Okech Tom [1978] HCB 36
  • Geoffrey Ssejjoba v Rev. Rwabigonji Patrick (Civil Suit No. 1 of 1976)
  • Prof. Oloka Onyango and 7 Others v Attorney General (Constitutional Petition No. 6 of 2014)
  • Yusuf Sembatya Kimbowa v The Editor the Observer and 2 Others (Civil Suit No. 482 of 2018)
  • Luzinda v Ssekamatte and 3 Others (Civil Suit No. 366 of 2017)
  • Robert Coussens v Attorney General (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 8 of 1999)
  • SBI International Holdings (U) Ltd v COF International Co. Ltd (Court of Appeal No. 194 of 2014)
  • Kwizera Eddie v Attorney General (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 1 of 2008)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Kebirungi v Mireku (Civil Suit 184 of 2022) [2025] UGHCCD 30 (18 February 2025)
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.