Wakilii

Maisha v Madraa (Civil Appeal No. 0031 of 2012)

High Court · [2016] UGHCCD 66 · 2016 Appeal Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Civil appeal from judgment of Adjumani Magistrate Grade One Court awarding damages for slander
Decision
Appeal dismissed. Lower court judgment and award of damages upheld.

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

The High Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the Magistrate's award of UGX 1,000,000 in general damages for slander. The court held that words imputing witchcraft to the respondent were defamatory and actionable per se as they imputed commission of a criminal offence under the Witchcraft Act. Publication was established through the appellant's utterances made in a loud voice within hearing distance of third parties. General damages are presumed in slander actionable per se without proof of actual damage.

Outcome

Appeal dismissed. Lower court judgment and award of damages upheld.

Facts

The respondent sued the appellant for slander arising from events on 11 September 2012. The respondent had punished one of the appellant's daughters with two strokes of the cane after the child admitted dumping orange peelings at the respondent's door. Later that evening, the appellant confronted the respondent and accused her of being a wizard who had killed her own children through witchcraft. The appellant made these utterances loudly and repeatedly over two days within hearing of several neighbours. The L.C.I Chairman convened proceedings where the appellant admitted the accusation but refused to apologise. The respondent sued for slander. The Magistrate's Court awarded UGX 1,000,000 in general damages and costs. The appellant appealed, contending the trial court erred in evaluating evidence and awarding damages without proof of actual loss of reputation.

Issues

  1. Whether the trial magistrate erred in evaluating the evidence on record.
  2. Whether the trial magistrate erred in awarding general damages when there was no evidence that the respondent suffered damage as a result of the alleged slander.

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed.
  • Costs of the appeal awarded to the respondent.

Rules and key headnotes

Tort Law — Defamation — Slander — Elements of slander — Test for defamatory statement
A statement is defamatory if it has a tendency to injure the reputation of the person to whom it refers by lowering him in the estimation of right-thinking members of society generally and in particular to cause him to be regarded with feelings of hatred, contempt, ridicule, fear, dislike and disesteem, or tends to make them shun and avoid that person. The person defamed does not have to prove that the words actually had any of these effects on any particular people or the public in general, only that the statement could tend to have that effect on an ordinary, reasonable listener.
Tort Law — Defamation — Slander — Imputation of criminal conduct — Actionable per se
Allegations are defamatory if they impute the commission of a criminal offence for which a person would be liable to imprisonment under the laws of Uganda. Imputation of witchcraft is an imputation of a criminal offence under section 2 of The Witchcraft Act Cap 124 and is therefore actionable per se without proof of actual damage.
Tort Law — Defamation — Publication — Unintentional publication to third party — Negligence
There can be no slander unless the defamatory statement is published or communicated to a third party. A person who did not intend that his or her statement be published must show that he or she took reasonable care in relation to its publication. When the defamatory matter is intended only for the plaintiff but is unintentionally communicated to another person, responsibility depends upon whether communication to that other person ought to have been anticipated. Where the communication is the direct result of the defendant's act, the burden is upon him to show that the communication was not the result of his negligence. A speaker who raises his voice to such an extent that it can be heard by persons within the carrying distance of the voice is taken to have intended the natural and probable consequence of the utterance.
Tort Law — Defamation — Slander actionable per se — General damages — Presumption of injury
In a suit for slander that is actionable per se, damages may be awarded even though actual damage is neither found nor shown, for in such a case the requirement of a showing of actual damage as a basis of an award of damages is satisfied by the presumption of injury which arises from a showing of slander that is actionable per se. General damages are such as the law will presume to be the natural and probable consequences of the defendant's words or conduct. If words have been proved to be defamatory of the plaintiff, general damages will always be presumed where the slander imputes criminal conduct.
Tort Law — Defamation — General damages — Assessment principles — Factors to consider
General damages for defamation are to be determined and quantified depending upon various factors: the gravity of the allegation; the size and influence of the circulation; the effect of publication; the extent and nature of claimant's reputation; and the behaviour of defendant and plaintiff. The successful plaintiff in a defamation action is entitled to recover such sum as will compensate for the damage to reputation, vindicate good name, and take account of the distress, hurt and humiliation which the defamatory publication caused.
Civil Procedure — Appeals — Grounds of appeal — Requirement for precision under Order 43 r.2
Order 43 rule 2 of The Civil Procedure Rules requires the memorandum to set forth, concisely and under distinct heads, the grounds of objection to the decree appealed from without any argument or narrative. A ground of appeal that lacks precision and fails to comply with these requirements should be struck off, although the court may in the interests of substantive justice allow arguments to be presented.
Civil Procedure — Appeals — Interference with award of damages — Appellate court's limited role
Where a trial court has exercised its discretion to award general damages, an appellate court cannot interfere with the exercise of that discretion unless it is satisfied that the trial court misdirected itself on some matter or principle and as a result arrived at a wrong decision, or unless it is manifest from the case as a whole that the trial court was clearly wrong in the exercise of its discretion arriving at an entirely erroneous estimate of damages so as to occasion an injustice.

Legislation cited (2)

Cases cited (17)

  • National Insurance Corporation v Pelican Air Services (Court of Appeal Civil Appeal No. 15 of 2005)
  • Namuyiga Nabbowa v New Vision Printing and Publishing Corporation and another (High Court Civil Suit No. 226 of 2003)
  • David Etuket and another v The New Vision Publishing Corporation (High Court Civil Suit No. 86 of 1996)
  • Uganda Breweries Limited v Uganda Railways Corporation (Court of Appeal Civil Appeal No. 6 of 2001)
  • Peter Kaggwa v New Vision Printing and Publishing Corporation and others (High Court Civil Suit No. 244 of 2002)
  • Selle v Associated Motor Boat Co. [1968] EA 123
  • Abdul Hameed Saif vs. Ali Mohamed Sholan (1955), 22 E. A. C. A. 270
  • Ssejjoba Geoffrey v Rev. Rwabigonji Patrick [1977] H.C.B 37
  • Onama v Uganda Argus [1969] EA 92
  • Odongkara v Astles [1970] EA 377
  • McNichol v. Grandy, [1931] S.C.R. 696
  • Scott v Sampson (1882) 8 QBD 503
  • Khasakhala v Aurali and Others [1995-98]1 E.A. 112
  • Cassell and C. Limited v Broome and another [1972] ALL ER 801 at 825
  • John v MGN Ltd [1996] 2 ALL ER 35 at 47
  • Mbogo and another v Shah [1968] EA 93
  • Blaize Babigumira v Hanns Besigye (High Court Civil Suit No. 744 of 1992)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Maisha v Madraa (Civil Appeal No. 0031 of 2012) [2016] UGHCCD 66 (13 October 2016)
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.