Wakilii

Kirumira Kalule v New Vision & 4 Others (MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION NO. 789 OF 2020)

High Court · [2020] UGHCCD 18 · 2020 Application Partly Allowed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for temporary injunction arising from defamation suit pending in the High Court Civil Division
Decision
Application granted against 2nd, 4th and 5th respondents; dismissed against 1st and 3rd respondents

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

Courts exercise great caution in granting interlocutory injunctions in defamation cases and will only do so in the clearest of cases where the statement is unarguably defamatory, no defence could succeed, and there is evidence of intention to repeat the publication. Where a media house reported matters derived from court pleadings and may rely on justification and fair comment, an injunction will not issue. However, where an individual litigant demonstrates likelihood of repeating defamatory statements which would be sub-judice, an injunction may be granted.

Outcome

Application granted against 2nd, 4th and 5th respondents; dismissed against 1st and 3rd respondents

Facts

The applicant brought an application for a temporary injunction to restrain the respondents from continuing to publish allegedly defamatory statements on their websites and social media accounts pending determination of the main defamation suit HCCS No. 483 of 2019. The 1st respondent, New Vision, published an article on 20th October 2019 about a land dispute involving the applicant, sourced from court documents. The 2nd respondent made statements on his Facebook page. The 4th respondent, Red Pepper, published an article on 8th November 2019 entitled "Killing for Money, Kwagalana Tycoon Named in City Mafia Murders, Wealth Wars". The 1st and 3rd respondents opposed the application arguing that they reported on matters of public interest derived from court pleadings and would rely on justification and fair comment. The 2nd respondent argued the publications were justifiable reactions to matters between him and the applicant. The 4th and 5th respondents did not file any response.

Issues

  1. Whether the applicant satisfied the conditions for grant of a temporary injunction restraining publication of allegedly defamatory statements.
  2. Whether the special principles governing injunctions in defamation cases were satisfied.
  3. Whether the respondents demonstrated intention to repeat the allegedly defamatory publications.

Orders

  • Application allowed in part.
  • Temporary injunction granted against the 2nd, 4th and 5th respondents restraining them from continuing to write, infer, publish or circulate defamatory statements pending determination of the main suit.
  • Application dismissed against the 1st and 3rd respondents.
  • Costs to be in the cause.

Rules and key headnotes

Defamation — Interlocutory Injunctions — Principles for Grant
In defamation cases, courts exercise their jurisdiction to grant interlocutory injunctions with the greatest caution and will grant such injunctions only in the clearest of cases where it is clear that the statement complained of is unarguably defamatory and no defence could possibly apply.
Defamation — Interlocutory Injunctions — Tests to be Satisfied
An interlocutory injunction in a defamation action will only be granted where: (a) the statement is unarguably defamatory; (b) there is no good ground for the statement to be true; (c) there is no other defence which might succeed; and (d) there is evidence of an intention to repeat or publish the defamatory statement.
Defamation — Press Freedom — Public Interest Defence
Where a media house reports matters derived from court pleadings and may rely on the defences of justification and fair comment, this is not one of the clearest of cases warranting an interlocutory injunction, as the action of defamation brings out conflict between private interest in reputation and public interest in freedom of speech.
Defamation — Repetition — Fresh Publication
Each time the originator of a defamatory statement repeats it, he publishes it anew and a fresh cause of action arises. Not only is the author of the defamatory statement liable but also those who repeat it.
Interlocutory Injunctions — Sub Judice Principle
Where a litigant in pending proceedings appears likely to repeat defamatory statements against the opposing party, this would be sub-judice and an interlocutory injunction may be granted to restrain such repetition pending determination of the main suit.

Legislation cited (5)

Cases cited (9)

  • Kiyimba Kaggwa v Haji A.N Katende [1985] HCB 43
  • Giella v Cassman Brown [1973] EA 358
  • Francis Atwoli and 5 Others v Hon Kazungu Kambi and 3 Others (HCCS No. 60 of 2015)
  • Cheserem v Immediate Media Services and 4 Others [2000] EA 371
  • Equator International Distributors Ltd v Beiersdorf East Africa Ltd & Others (Miscellaneous Application No. 1127 of 2014)
  • Yahaya Kariisa v Attorney General & Another (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 7 of 1994) [1997] HCB 29
  • Titus Tayebwa v Fred Bogere and Eric Mukasa (Civil Appeal No. 3 of 2009)
  • Greene v Associated Newspapers Ltd [2005] QB 972
  • Chin Bay Ching v Merchant Ventures Pte Ltd [2005] 3 SLR(R) 142

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Kirumira Kalule v New Vision & 4 Others (MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION NO. 789 OF 2020) [2020] UGHCCD 18 (13 March 2020)
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.