Wakilii

Monitor Publication Limited and Another v Nsaba Buturo (Civil Appeal No. 241 of 2019)

Court of Appeal · [2023] UGCA 119 · 2023 Appeal Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Civil appeal from High Court judgment for the plaintiff in a defamation suit
Decision
Appeal dismissed; High Court judgment and award of UGX 120,000,000 general damages with interest 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 Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal against a defamation judgment. It held that where a publication imputes a criminal offence, a defendant relying on justification must prove the commission of the offence to a higher degree of probability; the appellants produced no evidence that the respondent, a district commissioner, was the architect of Panda Gari or personally engaged in the alleged disappearances and killings. The defences of truth and fair comment therefore failed, the comment not being based on facts proved to be true. The MEGA FM corruption allegation was unconnected to the article and properly disregarded. The UGX 120,000,000 general damages award was a proper exercise of discretion, consistent with comparable awards, and not manifestly excessive.

Outcome

Appeal dismissed; High Court judgment and award of UGX 120,000,000 general damages with interest upheld

Facts

Monitor Publications Limited published an article authored by Major John Kazoora in the Daily Monitor of 28 March 2012 entitled 'Nsaba Buturo should be the last person to talk about the NRA'. The article described the respondent as the 'utterly ruthless and brutal District Commissioner of Kampala', head of city security and 'architect of the infamous Panda Gari', a 1982 security operation in which suspected persons were loaded onto trucks and made to disappear. The respondent, then a former Minister of Ethics and Integrity, sued for libel. The appellants pleaded justification (truth) and fair comment, leading evidence from a former district commissioner (DW1) and Kazoora (DW3), who recounted a personal pistol-threat encounter at Makerere University. Evidence established the respondent was only posted to Kampala as assistant district commissioner in 1982, after Panda Gari commenced in 1981, and there was no evidence he personally directed or participated in the operation. The trial court found the publication defamatory, the defences unproven, granted a permanent injunction and awarded UGX 120,000,000 general damages with interest and costs.

Issues

  1. Whether the trial judge properly evaluated the defence evidence in holding that the impugned publication was not shown to be true.
  2. Whether the defences of justification (truth) and fair comment were available to the appellants.
  3. Whether the trial judge erred in giving the words 'brutal' and 'architect' a defamatory meaning.
  4. Whether the respondent's conduct in the MEGA FM incident was relevant to his character in issue.
  5. Whether the general damages of UGX 120,000,000 awarded were manifestly excessive.

Orders

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

Rules and key headnotes

Defamation — Defence of Justification — Imputation of a Criminal Offence
Where a defamatory statement imputes the commission of a criminal offence, a defendant relying on the defence of justification must prove the commission of the offence charged, and although the standard remains proof on a balance of probabilities, the more serious the charge the higher the degree of probability required.
Defamation — Defence of Fair Comment — Requirements
The defence of fair comment is available only in relation to expressions of opinion on a matter of public interest that are based on facts proved to be true; it does not protect defamatory assertions of fact, and where the underlying facts are not established the defence fails.
Defamation — Meaning of Words — Natural and Ordinary Meaning Read in Context
In determining whether words are defamatory the court applies the standard of the hypothetical reasonable reader and reads the article as a whole, taking bane and antidote together; words bear their natural and ordinary meaning, which may include implied or inferred meanings drawn from general knowledge.
Character Evidence — Relevance — Collateral Conduct in a Defamation Suit
Evidence of the plaintiff's unrelated misconduct, even where character is in issue in a defamation suit, is irrelevant and properly disregarded where it has no connection with the matters complained of in the impugned publication.
Defamation — General Damages — Appellate Interference with Trial Court's Discretion
An appellate court will not interfere with a trial judge's assessment of general damages for defamation unless the judge acted on a wrong principle of law or the award is so high or low as to be an entirely erroneous estimate; failure to establish a pleaded defence of justification may aggravate damages.

Legislation cited (3)

Cases cited (21)

  • John Nagenda v The Editor of the Monitor Newspaper and Another (Civil Appeal No. 5 of 1994)
  • Hoare v Jessop [1965] EA 218
  • Francis Lukooya Muloome and Another v The Editor in Chief of Bukedde Newspaper and Others (HCCS No. 35 of 2007)
  • Telnikoff v Matusevich [1992] 1 AC 343
  • Jeynes v News Magazines Limited [2008] EWCA Civ 130
  • Liam Fox Vs. Harvey Boulter [2013]
  • Jones v Skelton [1963] 1 WLR 1362
  • Lewis v Daily Telegraph Ltd [1964] AC 234
  • Flint v Lovett (1935) 50 TLR 127
  • C.A.C.A No. 48 of En Selveno Asaba & and-Vs-Virginia Batisanga
  • Okot OM v Laker Nancy (HCCA No. 78 of 2010)
  • David Kachontori Bashakar v Kirunda Mubarak (HCCS No. 62 of 2009)
  • Abu Bakr K Mayanja v Tedi Seezi Cheeye and Another (HCCS No. 261 of 1992)
  • Crown Beverages Ltd v Sendu Edward [2006] 2 EA 43
  • Monitor Publications Ltd v Ricky Nelson Asiimwe (Civil Appeal No. 16 of 2010)
  • Samuel William Wako Wambuzi v Editor in Chief Red Pepper Publications Ltd and Another (Civil Suit No. 305 of 2015)
  • Court of Appeal Civil Appeal No. 0128 of 2017 (Red Pepper appeal)
  • The New Vision Publishing Co. Ltd and John Nagenda v Nsaba Buturo (Civil Appeal No. 284 of 2019)
  • Peters v Sunday Post Limited [1958] 1 EA 424
  • Sim v Stretch (1936) 2 All ER 1237
  • McPherson v Daniels (1829) 10 B & C 263

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Monitor Publication Limited and Another v Nsaba Buturo (Civil Appeal No. 241 of 2019) [2023] UGCA 119 (16 March 2023)
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.