Kemigisha v The Red Pepper Publications Ltd (CIVIL SUIT NO. 162 OF 2012)

Observed later treatment

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.

Holding

Held that the publications falsely stating the plaintiff had been arrested in the USA for possession of counterfeit dollars were defamatory, lowering her reputation in the estimation of right-thinking members of society. The defendant failed to prove the truth of the allegations or establish qualified privilege. The court awarded UGX 72,000,000 in general damages, UGX 11,000,000 in exemplary damages, and granted a permanent injunction restraining further defamatory publications.

Outcome

Judgment entered in favour of the plaintiff with declarations, damages, injunction, and costs

Facts

The defendant published three articles on 24 May, 25 May, and 6 June 2012 alleging that the plaintiff, the Tooro Queen Mother, had been arrested in the USA for possession of counterfeit dollars and was being questioned by US authorities in connection with a USD 5 million fake cash deal. The plaintiff was in the United Kingdom at the time, as evidenced by her passport showing entry at Heathrow on 17 May 2012. The publications caused widespread concern among the people of Tooro and prompted the royal family to hold a press conference denying the allegations. The plaintiff brought suit for defamation, seeking declarations, damages, injunction, and an apology. The defendant claimed it relied on intelligence sources and argued the publications were not defamatory.

Issues

1. Whether the plaint discloses a cause of action.
2. Whether the impugned publications are defamatory of the plaintiff.
3. Whether the impugned publications were true or made under qualified privilege.
4. What remedies are available to the parties.

Orders

• Declaration that the articles published by the defendant in The Red Pepper are defamatory of the plaintiff.
• General damages of UGX 72,000,000 awarded to the plaintiff.
• Exemplary damages of UGX 11,000,000 awarded to the plaintiff.
• Interest at the rate of 10% on both general and exemplary damages from the date of judgment to the date of payment in full.
• Apology to be published twice in one week with equal publicity as the impugned publications.
• Permanent injunction restraining the defendant, jointly or severally, by themselves, their agents and assignees from publishing further defamatory statements about the plaintiff.
• Costs of the suit awarded to the plaintiff.

Rules and key headnotes

Cases cited (12)

• Monitor Publication Ltd v Ricky Nelson Asiimwe (Supreme Court Criminal Appeal No. 16 of 2015)
• Mukome and Another v The Editor in Chief of Bukedde News Paper (High Court Civil Suit No. 351 of 2007)
• John Patrick Machira v Wangethi Mwangi and anor KLR 532
• A.K. Oils & Fats (U) Ltd v Bidco Uganda Limited (High Court Civil Suit No. 715 of 2005)
• Sim v Stretch [1936] 2 ALL ER 123 A.C.
• Hon. Justice Peter Onega v John Jaramoji Oloya (High Court Civil Suit No. 114 of 2009)
• Semu Amanu Opio (Supreme Court Criminal Appeal No. 3 of 1993)
• Ntagoba Herbert v New Vision (High Court Civil Suit No. 133 of 2003)
• SEMPA LUGAZI versus TEDDY SSEZI CHEEYE, HCCS No. 56 of 2013
• Rebecca Kadaga v Richard Tumusiime and 2 Others (High Court Civil Suit No. 56 of 2013)
• KINSELLA vs. KENMARE RESOURCES PLC & Anor [2019] IECA 54
• John vs MGN Ltd (1997) Q.B 586

Cases citing this judgment (2)

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.

• Candia & Another v Best Kemigisha (Miscellaneous Cause 187 of 2022)
• Red Pepper Publications Limited & Another v Wako Wambuzi (Civil Appeal No. 127 of 2018)

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