Wakilii

Mayanja v Cheeye (Civil Suit No. 261 of 1992)

High Court · [1992] UGHC 26 · 1992 Judgment for Plaintiff AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
First instance civil suit in libel
Decision
Plaintiff awarded damages for libel and costs.

Observed later treatment

Cited — treatment unverified cited in 5 (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 5 times with no adverse treatment recorded; not yet tested on the merits. Citations rising — 6 citing cases on record, 4 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

In a defamation action by the Attorney General against a newspaper editor and publication, the High Court held that describing the plaintiff as a "disorganised deputy" and "buffoon of the day" is capable of bearing defamatory meaning and tends to lower his reputation in the estimation of right-thinking members of society. Where the defendant published the article without factual basis, entered no defence, offered no apology, and published further defamatory material, damages of 2,000,000 shillings were awarded.

Outcome

Plaintiff awarded damages for libel and costs.

Facts

The plaintiff, a lawyer, third Deputy Prime Minister, Minister of Justice and Attorney General, sued the editor and publisher of Uganda Confidential over an article entitled "Abu Mayanja; The disorganised Deputy" in the December 1991 issue. The article alleged that the plaintiff travelled to Paris to attend a UN security meeting uninvited and unprepared, that he appeared to have a hidden agenda, that he behaved in a disorganised manner including cancelling travel arrangements, and left a bad name in France as one of the most disorganised foreign dignitaries. The defendants did not enter appearance or file a defence. Interlocutory judgment was entered and the matter proceeded ex parte for assessment of damages. The plaintiff called evidence showing he was duly appointed to lead the delegation, was briefed, and did not cancel travel arrangements. The defendants published further defamatory articles about the plaintiff in subsequent issues and refused to publish an apology when demanded.

Issues

  1. Whether there was publication of a false statement about the plaintiff by the defendants.
  2. Whether the words complained of in their natural and ordinary meaning are defamatory of the plaintiff.
  3. What is the quantum of damages if any.

Orders

  • Judgment for the plaintiff.
  • Defendants to pay damages of UGX 2,000,000.
  • Defendants to pay costs of the suit.

Rules and key headnotes

Tort Law — Defamation — Elements of the Tort
To establish the tort of defamation, the plaintiff must prove on the balance of probabilities: (1) publication of a false statement about the plaintiff by the defendant, (2) that the words published bear defamatory meaning in that they tend to lower a person's reputation in the estimation of right-thinking members of society generally, and (3) that the statement is defamatory must be judged objectively based on the standard of right-thinking members of society generally.
Tort Law — Defamation — Natural and Ordinary Meaning Test
To determine whether words are defamatory, the test is whether reasonable persons of ordinary intelligence would give them a fair and natural meaning that is defamatory, and whether under the circumstances in which the writing was published, reasonable men to whom it was made would be likely to understand it in a libellous sense.
Tort Law — Defamation — Defamatory Meaning
To describe a person as disorganised or disorderly, a buffoon or stupid and noisy, is clearly defamatory as it tends to lower his reputation in the estimation of right-thinking members of society generally.
Tort Law — Defamation — Proof of Publication and Falsity
The law presumes in favour of the plaintiff the falsity of a defamatory statement where the defendant does not appear or give evidence to rebut the plaintiff's case.
Damages & Quantum — Defamation — Assessment Principles
In assessing quantum of damages for defamation, the court must take into account: the conduct of the plaintiff, his position and standing in society, the nature of the libel, the mode and extent of publication, absence of any retraction or apology, and the whole conduct of the defendant from the time the libel was published down to the moment of judgment.
Damages & Quantum — Defamation — Enhanced Damages
The higher the plaintiff's social status, the greater is the likely injury to his feelings by a defamatory publication and therefore the greater is the amount of damages awardable. This amount is enhanced where the publication is extensive and where the defendant acted maliciously, including by refusing to publish an apology and publishing further defamatory matter.
Tort Law — Defamation — Actionable Per Se
Libel in all cases is actionable per se. Proof of damages is not necessary to entitle the plaintiff to an award of damages. Where damage is proved, this only aggravates the wrong committed and enhances the damages awardable.

Cases cited (4)

  • Didi v Attorney General (1976) HCB 328
  • Ssejjoba v Rwabigonji (1977) HCB 37
  • Adimola v Uganda Times Newspaper Ltd (HCCS No. 537 of 1979)
  • Bozalaki v Ilakut and Uganda Times Newspaper (1981) HCB 36

Cases citing this judgment (5)

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.

Mayanja v Cheeye (Civil Suit No. 261 of 1992) [1992] UGHC 26 (12 August 1992)
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.