Wakilii

Mukasa v The New Vision Publishing Co. Ltd (Misc Application No. 148 of 2013)

High Court · [2014] UGHCCD 74 · 2014 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application by Chamber Summons to amend plaint in underlying defamation suit
Decision
Application dismissed and underlying plaint rejected for failure to disclose a cause of action

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 dismissed the application for leave to amend. In a defamation action, the plaint must set out verbatim the words complained of. The applicant's plaint failed to quote the allegedly defamatory words verbatim from both the English and Luganda newspapers. Without the actual words, the plaint does not disclose a cause of action. A plaint that does not disclose a cause of action cannot be cured by amendment and must be rejected under Order 7 rule 11(a) of the Civil Procedure Rules.

Outcome

Application dismissed and underlying plaint rejected for failure to disclose a cause of action

Facts

The applicant, Captain Kibuuka Mukasa, filed a defamation suit (HCCS 23 of 2011) against The New Vision Publishing Co. Ltd arising from publications in the New Vision and Bukedde newspapers in June and July 2008. The articles concerned allegations that the applicant, in his capacity as a UPDF Captain, had maliciously damaged civilian property. The plaint did not contain verbatim extracts of the allegedly defamatory words but instead paraphrased them. The applicant subsequently obtained copies of the original articles and applied by chamber summons to amend the plaint to include the exact extracts. The applicant claimed he did not have the original copies when filing suit due to movement restrictions as a serving military officer. The respondent opposed the application, arguing that the original plaint was defective for failing to quote the defamatory words verbatim and therefore disclosed no cause of action.

Issues

  1. Whether the applicant should be granted leave to amend the plaint to include the exact extracts of the allegedly defamatory publications.
  2. Whether a plaint that does not quote the allegedly defamatory words verbatim discloses a cause of action.
  3. Whether a plaint that does not disclose a cause of action can be cured by amendment.

Orders

  • Application for leave to amend dismissed with costs.
  • Plaint in HCCS 23 of 2011 rejected under Order 7 rule 11(a) of the Civil Procedure Rules for failure to disclose a cause of action.

Rules and key headnotes

Tort Law — Defamation — Pleading Requirements — Verbatim Quotation of Words Complained Of
In a defamation action, the statement of claim must set out verbatim the words complained of. It is not sufficient to set out the substance or effect of the words, as the precise words are themselves material.
Tort Law — Defamation — Foreign Language Publications — Pleading Requirements
Where allegedly defamatory words were published in a local language, the plaint must quote those words verbatim in the original language followed by a literal translation into English, the official court language.
Civil Procedure — Pleadings — Amendment — Plaint Disclosing No Cause of Action
A plaint which does not disclose a cause of action cannot be cured by amendment. Where the defect is fundamental, the proper course is to reject the plaint rather than grant leave to amend.
Tort Law — Defamation — Cause of Action — Essential Elements in Pleadings
A defamation plaint that fails to quote the allegedly defamatory words verbatim does not disclose a cause of action and raises no issues for determination. Proper quotation of the words is not a mere technicality but enables the defendant to know the case to be met and allows the court to judge whether the words constitute grounds for action.

Legislation cited (4)

Cases cited (7)

  • Knupffer v London Express Newspaper Ltd [1944] AC 116
  • Collins v Jones [1955] 1 QB 564
  • Presidential SC Election Petition No. 1 of 2006
  • Syndenham v Man [1617] Cro. Jac 407
  • DDSA Pharmaceuticals Ltd (1973) 1 QB 21 CA
  • Bruce v Odhams Ltd [1936] 1 KB 697
  • Nkalubo v Kibirige [1973] EA 102

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Mukasa v The New Vision Publishing Co. Ltd (Misc Application No. 148 of 2013) [2014] UGHCCD 74 (15 May 2014)
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.