Wakilii

Kiirya Hillary v The New Vision Printing & Publishing Company Ltd & Anor (Cv. Cs. No. 144 Of 2007) (Cv. Cs. No. 144 of 2007)

High Court · [2009] UGHC 159 · 2009 Judgment for Plaintiff AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
First instance civil suit for defamation and unlawful dismissal
Decision
Judgment for plaintiff; defendants liable jointly and severally for damages, interest, and costs.

Observed later treatment

Cited — treatment unverified cited in 2 (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 2 times with no adverse treatment recorded; not yet tested on the merits. Citations rising — 3 citing cases on record, 3 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 held that a freelance journalist who sold articles to a newspaper on a per-piece basis was not an employee under a contract of service. However, the newspaper's termination of the working relationship without affording the journalist a hearing violated the rule of natural justice (audi alteram partem) and was unlawful. The court further held that a prominently placed public notice warning readers not to deal with the journalist was defamatory in its natural and ordinary meaning, portraying him as untrustworthy and dishonest. General damages of UGX 10,000,000 were awarded.

Outcome

Judgment for plaintiff; defendants liable jointly and severally for damages, interest, and costs.

Facts

Kiirya Hillary worked as a freelance journalist for The New Vision newspaper from November 2000 to January 2007. He would prepare articles, submit them to the newspaper, and be paid monthly for published articles. The newspaper issued him an identity card and allowed him use of their facilities at a cost. On 29 January 2007, the Deputy Editor-in-Chief summarily terminated his relationship with the newspaper, alleging he had filed a story for a competing newspaper using New Vision facilities. His identity and access cards were withdrawn immediately. He was not informed of the specific allegations or given an opportunity to respond. On 31 January 2007, the newspaper published a prominent quarter-page notice with his photograph, warning the public that he was no longer authorised to represent the newspaper and that anyone dealing with him did so at their own risk. The plaintiff sued for defamation and unlawful dismissal.

Issues

  1. Whether the relationship between the plaintiff and defendant amounted to a contract of employment.
  2. Whether the plaintiff as a freelance reporter was an employee of the defendants.
  3. Whether the discontinuation of the plaintiff's services by the defendants amounted to lawful termination of the working relationship.
  4. Whether the Notice, Exhibit P1, is defamatory of the plaintiff.
  5. What are the remedies available to the parties.

Orders

  • Judgment entered for the plaintiff.
  • Defendants to pay the plaintiff general damages of UGX 10,000,000 jointly and/or severally.
  • The sum of UGX 10,000,000 shall carry interest at court rate from the date of judgment till payment in full.
  • Costs of the suit awarded to the plaintiff jointly and/or severally against the defendants.

Rules and key headnotes

Employment & Labour — Contract of Service — Distinction from Contract for Service — Control Test
A contract of service exists where the employer exercises direct control over the employee regarding when, where, and how work is performed. Where a person sells services and the recipient exercises no day-to-day control over the manner of performance, the relationship is a contract for service, not employment.
Employment & Labour — Freelance Journalists — Employment Status — Contract for Service
A freelance journalist who searches for, writes, and submits articles to a newspaper for publication at the newspaper's discretion, and is paid per article published, is not an employee but provides services under a contract for service.
Administrative Law — Natural Justice — Audi Alteram Partem — Right to Be Heard
The right to be heard (audi alteram partem) is a cardinal rule of natural justice. A decision made in breach of this rule, without affording the affected person notice of the allegations and an opportunity to respond, is void and of no legal effect.
Employment & Labour — Termination — Unlawful Termination — Working Relationship — Denial of Hearing
Even where a working relationship does not constitute a contract of employment, termination of that relationship without affording the affected person a hearing and without informing them of the allegations they must answer is unlawful and contrary to natural justice.
Tort Law — Defamation — Natural and Ordinary Meaning — Test
A statement is defamatory if it injures the reputation of the person to whom it refers by lowering that person's reputation in the eyes of right-thinking members of society generally. The test is objective, based on the standard of an ordinary reasonable person, and it is no defence that the statement was not intended to be defamatory.
Tort Law — Defamation — Burden of Proof — Natural and Ordinary Meaning
Where words are defamatory in their natural and ordinary meaning, the plaintiff need only prove publication. The burden then shifts to the defendant to prove that, given the circumstances or manner of publication, the words are not defamatory.
Tort Law — Defamation — Public Notice — Natural and Ordinary Meaning — Implied Dishonesty
A prominently published notice stating that a person is no longer authorised to represent a newspaper and warning the public that anyone dealing with him does so at their own risk is defamatory in its natural and ordinary meaning, as it portrays the person as untrustworthy, dishonest, and capable of false representation for personal gain.

Legislation cited (1)

Cases cited (7)

  • Simmons v Health Laundry Co [1910] 1 KB 543
  • Kamurasi Charles v Accord Properties Limited & Anor (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 3 of 1996)
  • Matovu & 2 Others v Sseviri & Anor [1979] HCB 174
  • Geoffrey Ssejjoba v Rev. Patrick Rwabigonji [1977] HCB 37
  • J.H. Ntabgoba v The Editor-in-Chief of the New Vision Newspaper & Anor (H.C. Civil Suit No. 113 of 2003)
  • John v MGM Ltd [1996] ALLER 35
  • Major Godfrey Segawa v The Editor, The Crusader Newspaper & Anor (H.C. Civil Suit No. 27 of 1992)

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.

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Kiirya Hillary v The New Vision Printing & Publishing Company Ltd & Anor (Cv. Cs. No. 144 Of 2007) (Cv. Cs. No. 144 of 2007) [2009] UGHC 159 (28 August 2009)
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.