Wakilii

Kisaakye v Kadama (CIVIL SUIT NO. 194 OF 2013)

High Court · [2017] UGHCCD 219 · 2017 Judgment for Plaintiff AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
First instance civil suit for defamation seeking injunction and damages
Decision
Judgment entered for the plaintiff with damages, injunction, and costs

Observed later treatment

Treatment recorded in citing cases followed in 1 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.

Good law Followed in 1 case and applied in 0 cases, with no adverse treatment recorded. Citations rising — 8 citing cases on record, 7 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 court held that the defendant published defamatory statements about the plaintiff, a Supreme Court Judge, both in a letter to the Chief Justice and through a tabloid newspaper article. The statements lowered the plaintiff's reputation by portraying her as dishonest and not law-abiding. The defendant failed to prove the truth of the statements or any applicable defence. The plaintiff was awarded UGX 20,000,000 in general damages, UGX 5,000,000 in punitive damages, costs, and a permanent injunction restraining further defamatory publications.

Outcome

Judgment entered for the plaintiff with damages, injunction, and costs

Facts

The plaintiff, Justice Esther Kisaakye of the Supreme Court of Uganda, sued the defendant Sarah Kadama for defamation. The defendant wrote a letter dated 22 April 2013 to the Chief Justice stating that Justice Kisaakye was not an honest and law-abiding citizen and did not fight for women's rights. The defendant repeated these allegations in a written statement of defence in a separate land suit. The defendant also caused publication of an article in the Hello Uganda tabloid newspaper on 21 June 2013 titled "Justice Kisaakye in property wrangles" reporting that Justice Kisaakye was embroiled in a property dispute with the defendant over Frank Samanya Kitimbo's wealth. The dispute arose from a property matter where the defendant occupied property subsequently purchased by the plaintiff's associate. The defendant denied causing the tabloid publication and claimed her statements were fair comment, but provided no proof of their truthfulness.

Issues

  1. Whether the defendant published or caused the publication of defamatory statements against the plaintiff.
  2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the remedies sought.

Orders

  • Permanent injunction granted restraining the defendant and her agents from further publication of defamatory content.
  • General damages of UGX 20,000,000 awarded to the plaintiff.
  • Punitive damages of UGX 5,000,000 awarded to the plaintiff.
  • Interest on general and punitive damages at 6% per annum from date of judgment until full payment.
  • Costs of the suit awarded to the plaintiff to be taxed.

Rules and key headnotes

Defamation — Elements of the Tort
To prove defamation, the plaintiff must establish: (1) the defendant made a statement about the plaintiff to another; (2) the statement was injurious to the plaintiff's reputation in the eyes of right-thinking members of society; (3) the statement was false; (4) if the plaintiff is a public figure, the defendant made the false statement intentionally or with reckless disregard of the plaintiff's rights; and (5) there are no applicable privileges or defences.
Defamation — Test for Defamatory Meaning
The test for whether a statement is capable of giving defamatory meaning is whether the words tend to lower the plaintiff in the estimation of right-thinking members of society generally, exposing the plaintiff to hatred, ridicule, contempt, fear or dislike.
Defamation — Right to Reputation
Every person is entitled to have their reputation preserved inviolate. A person's reputation is property that depends on the enjoyment of good opinion on the part of others, and the right to reputation involves the right to have reputation intact and continue to enjoy good opinion.
Defamation — Defence of Fair Comment — Burden of Proof
Where a defendant pleads that statements were fair and truthful comment, the defendant bears the burden of proving the truthfulness of the statements. A defence of fair comment fails if the words not proved to be true materially injure the plaintiff's reputation. The defendant must provide evidence to back up perceptions or opinions about another before publishing allegations.
Defamation — Causation of Publication
A defendant who writes a defamatory letter and copies it to multiple media houses, and whose letter is then referenced in a tabloid publication containing similar allegations, can be found to have caused the tabloid publication based on overwhelming circumstantial evidence.
Defamation — Assessment of General Damages
In assessing general damages for defamation, the most important factors are the gravity of the libel and the extent of publication. Damages aim to vindicate the plaintiff's reputation and status, especially where no apology or retraction is offered. The social standing of the plaintiff and comparable awards in decided cases should be considered.
Defamation — Punitive Damages
Punitive damages may be awarded in defamation cases where the defendant insisted statements were true, failed to prove the truth of the allegations, and acted recklessly with potential for repetition, warranting punishment beyond compensation.

Cases cited (6)

  • Sim v Stretch [1936] 2 All ER 123
  • A.K. Oils & Fats (U) Ltd v Bidco Uganda Limited (High Court Civil Suit No. 715 of 2005)
  • Peter Onega v John Jaramoji Oloya (High Court Civil Suit No. 114 of 2009)
  • Nairobi City Council v Thabiti Enterprises Ltd [1995-98] 2 EA 23
  • Amos Twinomujuni v The Attorney General & Lt. James Mwesigye (High Court Civil Suit No. 0413 of 2005)
  • Nyeko v Uganda Broadcasting Corporation Company Ltd & Anor (Civil Suit No. 0044 of 2013)

Cases citing this judgment (6)

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.

Kisaakye v Kadama (CIVIL SUIT NO. 194 OF 2013) [2017] UGHCCD 219 (14 July 2017)
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.