Wakilii

Makuru v Editor in Chief Orumuri Newspaper & 2 Ors (Civil Suit No. 128 of 2003)

High Court · [2009] UGHC 230 · 2009 Judgment for Plaintiff AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
First instance civil suit for libel
Decision
Judgment entered for the plaintiff with damages, interest, and costs

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

A newspaper article alleging that the plaintiff, as Mayor of Rukungiri Town Council, intentionally took dogs to a mosque contrary to Islamic tradition was defamatory. The publication lowered the plaintiff in the estimation of the Muslim community and exposed him to hatred and contempt. The defendants failed to prove justification or qualified privilege. Damages of UGX 15 million were awarded as compensation for injury to reputation and hurt to feelings, plus interest and costs.

Outcome

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

Facts

Charles Makuru, Mayor and Chairman of Rukungiri Town Council, sued the defendants for libel arising from an article published in Orumuri Newspaper on 4-10 November 2002. The article alleged that on 20 October 2002 Makuru intentionally took his dogs to the Rukungiri Town mosque, contrary to Islamic belief, and that Muslim leaders threatened to take him to court unless he apologised. Makuru testified he never took dogs to the mosque. His witnesses, including the Imam of the mosque, Sheikh Hassan Bataringaya, confirmed they investigated the matter and found no truth to the allegations. The witness who was allegedly the source of the story denied providing such information. The defendants did not call any witnesses to support their defence.

Issues

  1. Whether the words in the Article complained of were defamatory of the Plaintiff.
  2. Whether there was any justification for the publication.
  3. Whether there was qualified privilege.
  4. What remedies are available to the parties.

Orders

  • Judgment entered for the plaintiff.
  • Plaintiff awarded UGX 15,000,000 as general damages.
  • Interest on the damages at court rate from the date of judgment until payment in full.
  • Plaintiff awarded costs of the suit.

Rules and key headnotes

Tort Law — Defamation — Libel — Test for Defamatory Meaning
A publication is defamatory if it conveys an imputation to a person's discredit, or one which tends to lower that person in the estimation of others or expose them to hatred, contempt or ridicule, or injure their reputation in office, trade or profession. The standard is that of right-thinking persons generally and the law looks only to the publication's tendency, not its actual effect.
Tort Law — Defamation — Defences — Justification — Burden of Proof
Where a defendant pleads justification as a defence to defamation, the defendant must prove that the words published were true. Once it has been shown that the publication was not true, the defence of justification collapses. Justification and privilege must be clearly pleaded so as to inform the plaintiff and the court precisely what meaning the defendant seeks to justify.
Tort Law — Defamation — Defences — Qualified Privilege — Malice and Falsity
A defence of qualified privilege requires that the report be of public importance and made without malice or ill will. Once a publication has been proved to be untrue, it cannot claim to be of public importance and lacks moral authority for such a claim. Where the publication is proved false, the presumption that it was motivated by ill will or malice cannot be resisted.
Tort Law — Defamation — Damages — Principles of Assessment
In awarding damages for libel, the court must consider: (i) compensation for pain and suffering caused by the publication; (ii) vindication of the plaintiff's reputation in the eyes of the public; (iii) the whole conduct of both parties from publication to judgment, with damages aggravated if the defendant engaged in malicious and insulting conduct; (iv) any previous damages recovered by the plaintiff to avoid double compensation; and (v) the manner of publication and extent of circulation.

Cases cited (3)

  • Matembe v Cheeye (HCCS No. 1047 of 1998)
  • Figueredo v Editor of Sunday National [1968] EA 501
  • Biwott v Clays Ltd [2000] EA 334

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Makuru v Editor in Chief Orumuri Newspaper & 2 Ors (Civil Suit No. 128 of 2003) [2009] UGHC 230 (26 November 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.