Wakilii

Lukyamuzi & Another v The Editor, Hello Uganda & 2 Others (Civil Suit 227 of 2015)

High Court · [2024] UGHCCD 96 · 2024 Judgment for Plaintiffs AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
First instance civil suit for defamation arising from publications in Hello Uganda and Red Pepper newspapers
Decision
Suit succeeded with judgment entered for the Plaintiffs against the Defendants jointly and severally for damages, injunction, apology, interest and costs

Observed later treatment

Cited — treatment unverified cited in 1 (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 1 time with no adverse treatment recorded; not yet tested on the merits. 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 publications in Hello Uganda and Red Pepper newspapers alleging the second plaintiff had an extramarital affair with a UPDF General who financed both plaintiffs were defamatory. The publications falsely portrayed the plaintiffs as immoral, money-minded, and contributed to the first plaintiff's electoral loss. All three defendants were held jointly and severally liable. General damages of UGX 75,000,000 and UGX 50,000,000 were awarded to the first and second plaintiffs respectively, with a permanent injunction restraining further defamatory publications and an order for a public apology.

Outcome

Suit succeeded with judgment entered for the Plaintiffs against the Defendants jointly and severally for damages, injunction, apology, interest and costs

Facts

The first plaintiff, a lawyer, businessman, former Member of Parliament and President of the Conservative Party, and the second plaintiff, his daughter and former Member of Parliament, sued three defendants for defamation. On 28 June 2015, Hello Uganda newspaper published an article alleging the second plaintiff had hooked up with a UPDF General from Western Uganda who paid her medical bills and bought the first plaintiff a Toyota Kluger vehicle. The article also insinuated the second plaintiff conspired with the General to kill her husband. A second publication in Red Pepper newspaper on 6 February 2014 alleged the first plaintiff received a brown envelope from President Museveni through an intermediary. Both plaintiffs denied the allegations, showing the first plaintiff paid for the car and medical bills himself. The defendants did not appear to defend the suit despite initially filing a written statement of defence denying liability and claiming the publications were true.

Issues

  1. Whether the publication was defamatory of the Plaintiffs?
  2. Whether the Defendants are jointly and severally liable?
  3. Whether the Plaintiffs are entitled to the remedies sought?

Orders

  • The Defendants, as publishers of the Hello Uganda Newspaper, shall publish an apology to the Plaintiffs in respect of the defamatory publication of 28th June 2015 within 30 (thirty) days from the date of delivery of this judgment.
  • A permanent injunction is granted restraining the Defendants from any further publication of libelous materials against the Plaintiffs.
  • Payment of UGX 75,000,000 to the 1st Plaintiff as general damages by the Defendants jointly and severally.
  • Payment of UGX 50,000,000 to the 2nd Plaintiff as general damages by the Defendants jointly and severally.
  • Payment of interest on the general damages at a rate of 10% per annum from the date of judgment till payment in full.
  • Payment of the taxed costs of the suit by the Defendants.

Rules and key headnotes

Defamation — Elements — Publication Injurious to Reputation
For a statement to be defamatory, it must be published and carry with it a tendency to injure the reputation of the person to whom it refers by lowering him or her in the estimation of right-thinking members of society generally and in particular to cause him or her to be regarded with feelings of hatred, contempt, ridicule, fear or dislike.
Defamation — Proof — Elements Plaintiff Must Establish
To succeed in a suit for defamation, a 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; if the plaintiff is a public figure or 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 enjoyed by the defendant.
Defamation — Damages — Assessment Principles
In assessing damages for defamation, the most important factor is the gravity of the libel; the more closely it touches the plaintiff's personal integrity, professional reputation, honour, courage, loyalty and the core attributes of personality, the more serious it is likely to be. The extent of publication is very relevant, as a libel published to millions has a greater potential to cause damage than one published to a handful of people.
Defamation — Apology — Effect on Liability and Damages
An apology is not a defence to a claim in defamation but it minimises the damage done by the original publication and may have relevance in the assessment of damages for the defamation.
Defamation — Exemplary Damages — When Available
Exemplary damages are awarded only in three categories of cases: where there has been oppressive, arbitrary, or unconstitutional action by servants of the government; where the defendant's conduct has been calculated to make a profit which may well exceed the compensation payable to the plaintiff; or where some law for the time being in force authorises the award of exemplary damages.
Burden of Proof — Standard in Civil Proceedings
In civil proceedings, the burden of proof lies upon he who alleges and the standard of proof is on a balance of probabilities. When a plaintiff has led evidence establishing the claim, the legal burden is executed and the evidential burden shifts to the defendant to rebut the plaintiff's claims.

Legislation cited (5)

Cases cited (9)

  • Dr. Specioza Kazibwe v Independent Publications Ltd & Others (High Court Civil Suit No. 105 of 2010)
  • Geoffrey Ssejjoba v Rev. Patrick Rwabigonji (High Court Civil Suit No. 1 of 1976)
  • The Red Pepper Publications Ltd & Another v Rtd Chief Justice Samuel W. Wako Wambuzi (Court of Appeal Civil Appeal No. 128 of 2017)
  • Hadley v Baxendale (1854) 9 Exch 341
  • Kibimba Rice Ltd v Umar Salim (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 17 of 1992)
  • Robert Cuossens v Attorney General (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 8 of 1999)
  • Uganda Commercial bank v Kigozi [2002] 1 EA 305
  • John v MGN Ltd [1962] 2ALLER 35
  • Rookes v Barnard [1946] ALLER 367 at 410, 411

Cases citing this judgment (1)

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.

Lukyamuzi & Another v The Editor, Hello Uganda & 2 Others (Civil Suit 227 of 2015) [2024] UGHCCD 96 (4 June 2024)
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.