Wakilii

Matovu Cranmer Musoke and Another v Kibuuka Ekoyasi Ngabompya and Another (Civil Suit No 243 of 2022)

High Court · [2025] UGHCCD 98 · 2025 Judgment for Plaintiffs AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
First instance civil suit for defamation heard exparte after defendants failed to file defence or appear
Decision
Judgment entered for the plaintiffs with damages, interest, permanent injunction, and costs awarded

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

Held that the defendants' statements falsely accusing the first plaintiff of raping and impregnating his niece were defamatory. The initial police report was not per se defamatory as it was based on reasonable suspicion, but the defendants' continued publication and circulation of the allegations after two DNA tests excluded the first plaintiff as the father demonstrated malice and intent to defame. The plaintiffs established a case for defamation and were awarded general damages, special damages, interest, a permanent injunction, and costs.

Outcome

Judgment entered for the plaintiffs with damages, interest, permanent injunction, and costs awarded

Facts

The first plaintiff, a surveyor, was accused by the first defendant (his brother) and the second defendant (his niece) of raping and impregnating the second defendant in December 2020. The defendants lodged a police complaint on 21 April 2021, leading to the arrest and detention of both plaintiffs for over 48 hours. The first defendant also published the allegations on social media, including a family WhatsApp group. The first plaintiff obtained a court order for DNA testing, and two separate DNA tests conducted at different facilities excluded him as the father of the second defendant's child. The DPP directed that the file be closed and put away. Despite the scientific evidence clearing the plaintiffs, the defendants continued to circulate the allegations in the village and on social media. The plaintiffs filed this defamation suit seeking compensation and injunctive relief.

Issues

  1. Whether the statements of the defendants are defamatory of the plaintiffs and whether the statements complained of were published by the defendants.
  2. What remedies are available to the parties.

Orders

  • UGX 20,000,000 awarded to the 1st plaintiff Cranmer Matovu as general damages.
  • UGX 7,000,000 awarded to the 2nd plaintiff Ismail Katende as general damages.
  • UGX 4,000,000 awarded to the plaintiffs for instruction fees.
  • UGX 4,000,000 awarded to the plaintiffs for execution fees.
  • UGX 750,000 awarded to the 1st plaintiff as refund for DNA test costs.
  • Interest at 8% per annum on all awards from date of judgment until payment in full.
  • Permanent injunction restraining the defendants from further making false utterances and defamatory statements against the plaintiffs.
  • Costs of the suit awarded to the plaintiffs.

Rules and key headnotes

Defamation — Elements — Defamatory Statement, Publication, and Falsity
The essential ingredients of defamation are that the defendant made a statement about the plaintiff to another, the statement was injurious to the plaintiff's reputation and lowered the reputation of the plaintiff in the eyes of right-thinking members of society, the statement was untrue, and if the plaintiff is a public figure the defendant must have made the false statement intentionally or with reckless disregard of the plaintiff's rights, and there are no privileges or defences enjoyed by the defendant.
Defamation — Test for Defamatory Nature — Natural and Ordinary Meaning
The test for whether a statement is defamatory is whether the words would tend to lower the plaintiff in the estimation of right-thinking members of society, cause others to shun or avoid the plaintiff, or expose the plaintiff to hatred, contempt and ridicule. Words are to be taken in the sense of their natural and ordinary meaning, and the court must have regard to what the words would convey to the ordinary man.
Defamation — Police Reports — When Not Per Se Defamatory
The lodging of a police complaint alleging a serious crime is not per se defamatory where the report is based on reasonable suspicion and the complainant is duty bound to report the matter. However, where the report is actuated by malice, rivalry, or a deliberate attempt to bring down the accused, and the complainant continues to publish defamatory statements after the accused has been cleared by incontrovertible evidence, a case for defamation is established.
Defamation — Malice — Continued Publication After Exoneration
Where defendants continue to publish and circulate defamatory allegations after scientific evidence (such as DNA tests) has excluded the plaintiff as the perpetrator of the alleged crime, and the prosecution has dropped the case, such persistent accusation demonstrates malice and an ulterior motive to defame, and establishes liability for defamation.
General Damages for Defamation — Assessment Principles
In assessing general damages for defamation, the court must consider the gravity of the libel, the extent to which it touches the plaintiff's personal integrity and professional reputation, the extent of publication, and the distress, hurt and humiliation caused. The purpose of damages is to compensate for damage to reputation, vindicate the plaintiff's good name, and account for the distress suffered.
Special Damages — Proof and Recovery
Special damages must be specifically pleaded and proved. Where a plaintiff proves instruction fees, execution fees, and costs of DNA testing necessitated by the defendant's defamatory allegations, such special damages are recoverable.
Exparte Proceedings — Judgment After Failure to Defend
Where a defendant fails to file a written statement of defence despite proper service and fails to attend court, the matter may proceed exparte and judgment may be entered against the defendant based on the plaintiff's evidence.

Legislation cited (3)

Cases cited (10)

  • Okech Wilson v Odong Balam (Civil Appeal No. 2014/10 of 2015)
  • Okeny and 4 Others v Odok (Civil Suit No. 12 of 2009)
  • Ssejjoba Geoffrey v Rev. Rwabigonji Patrick [1977] HCB 37
  • Blaize Babigumira v Hanns Besigye (Civil Suit No. 744 of 1992)
  • Ssonko Gerald v Okech Tom [1978] HCB 36
  • The Red Pepper Publications Ltd and Another v Rtd Chief Justice Samuel W. Wako Wambuzi (Court of Appeal Civil Appeal No. 128 of 2017)
  • Geoffrey Ssejjoba v Rev. Patrick Rwabigonji (Civil Suit No. 1 of 1976)
  • Kibimba Rice Ltd v Umar Salim (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 17 of 1992)
  • Uganda Commercial Bank v Kigozi [2002] 1 EA 305
  • John v MGN Ltd [1962] 2 All ER 35

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Matovu Cranmer Musoke and Another v Kibuuka Ekoyasi Ngabompya and Another (Civil Suit No 243 of 2022) [2025] UGHCCD 98 (8 July 2025)
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.