Wakilii

Nalubega v Stabex International Limited (Civil Suit 665 of 2021)

High Court · [2023] UGCOMMC 292 · 2023 Judgment for Plaintiff AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
First instance civil suit for infringement of personality rights and breach of privacy
Decision
Judgment for the plaintiff with damages, injunction, interest and costs

Observed later treatment

Treatment recorded in citing cases followed in 1 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.

Good law Followed in 1 case and applied in 0 cases, with no adverse treatment recorded. 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

Held that the defendant infringed the plaintiff's personality rights and breached her right to privacy by taking and using her photographs for commercial advertising without her consent, contrary to the Data Protection Act 2019. The court found that consent under the Act must be freely given, specific, informed and unambiguous, and that the defendant's reliance on alleged verbal consent was insufficient. The plaintiff was awarded UGX 5,000,000 in general damages for distress, and the defendant was ordered to remove all images from public platforms.

Outcome

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

Facts

The plaintiff was employed by the defendant as a customer service assistant from June 2019 to March 2021. On 17 January 2020, the defendant's agents took photographs of the plaintiff dressed in the defendant's uniform holding its products. The plaintiff testified that she was uncomfortable with the photo shoot and grudgingly participated for fear of losing her job. The defendant used the plaintiff's images extensively in advertising on print and online media including billboards, Facebook, YouTube and flyers. The plaintiff discovered this when family and friends informed her. After her dismissal in March 2021, the defendant continued to use her images despite her demands to stop. The plaintiff brought suit claiming infringement of personality rights, breach of privacy, unjust enrichment and other reliefs. The defendant contended that the plaintiff impliedly consented during employment and that the photos were taken in the course of her employment.

Issues

  1. Whether the Defendant infringed the Plaintiff's personality rights.
  2. What remedies are available to the Plaintiff.

Orders

  • Judgment entered for the Plaintiff.
  • The Plaintiff's image rights were infringed upon by the Defendant.
  • The Defendant breached the Plaintiff's right to privacy.
  • The Plaintiff is awarded general damages of UGX 5,000,000.
  • The Defendant shall remove any images from billboards, media outlets, brochures, flyers, YouTube, Facebook, print media and any other platforms.
  • Interest on damages at a rate of 18% per annum from the date of judgment till payment in full.
  • The Defendant shall pay the costs of the Plaintiff.

Rules and key headnotes

Right to Privacy — Data Protection — Photographs as Personal Data
Photographs of an individual constitute personal data under the Data Protection Act 2019 where they identify the person, and their collection, processing and storage are governed by the Act.
Right to Privacy — Data Protection — Consent Requirements
Under section 7(1) of the Data Protection Act 2019, a person shall not collect or process personal data without the prior consent of the data subject, where consent means any freely given, specific, informed and unambiguous indication of the data subject's wish signified by a statement or clear affirmative action.
Personality Rights — Verbal Consent — Employment Context
A policy of securing only verbal consent from employees to use their photographs for commercial advertising, leaving no record, does not satisfy the unambiguous consent requirement of the Data Protection Act 2019, particularly where no witness confirms that such consent was actually given.
Personality Rights — Employer Capacity to Consent
An employer possesses no capacity to give consent on behalf of an employee for the taking and publication of the employee's personal images, as only the individual whose image is involved has the capacity to give consent on such personal affairs.
Personality Rights — Marketable Value — Equal Protection
Personality rights are not limited to persons of marketable fame or celebrity status. Under Article 21(1) of the Constitution, all persons are equal before the law and shall enjoy equal protection, and an individual's personality rights are violated when their reputation or likeness is exploited without consent for advertising purposes regardless of their fame or social standing.
Right to Privacy — Breach of Privacy as Infringement of Personality Rights
Breach of an individual's right to privacy through unauthorised collection and use of their photographs in violation of the Data Protection Act 2019 constitutes an infringement of their personality rights.
Data Protection — Compensation for Distress
Under section 33(1) of the Data Protection Act 2019, where a data subject suffers damage or distress through contravention by a data controller or collector of the requirements of the Act, the data subject is entitled to compensation, though the data subject must prove that they suffered damage or distress.

Legislation cited (6)

Cases cited (12)

  • Asege Winnie v Opportunity Bank (U) Ltd (High Court Civil Suit No. 756 of 2013)
  • Jessica Claise Wanjiru V. Davinci Aesthetics & Reconstruction Centre & 2 Ors (2017) eKLR
  • Wangechi Waweru Mwende u. Tecno Mobile Ltd & Anor, CS No.494 of 2016
  • Odur David v Ocaga Alphonse & 3 Ors (High Court Civil Appeal No. 34 of 2018)
  • Gold View Inn (U) Ltd v Barclays Bank (U) Ltd (Civil Suit No. 358 of 2009)
  • Catherine Njeri Wanjiru V. Machakos University, H.C Pet. E021/2021
  • Sikuku Agaitano v Uganda Baati (High Court Civil Suit No. 298 of 2012)
  • Apea Moses v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 0653 of 2015)
  • Krouse V. Chrysler Canada Ltd (1977) 13 CPR (2d) 28
  • Kamande V. Nation Media Group (Constitutional Petition E004 of 2021) [2022] KEHC 16017 (KLR)
  • Lloyd (Respondent) u Google LLC (Appellant) [2019] EWCA Civ 1599
  • MWK & Another vs Attorney General & 3 Others [2017] eKLR

Cases citing this judgment (1)

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.

Nalubega v Stabex International Limited (Civil Suit 665 of 2021) [2023] UGCommC 292 (23 June 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.