Wakilii

Nalunga v Kuteesa (Miscellaneous Application 1217 of 2024)

High Court · [2025] UGHCCD 17 · 2025 Application Granted AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for temporary injunction arising from civil suit for defamation
Decision
Temporary injunction granted pending hearing of main suit

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 High Court granted a temporary injunction restraining the respondent from publishing allegedly defamatory statements about the applicant. The court applied the stricter test for interlocutory injunctions in defamation cases, requiring that the statement be unarguably defamatory with no possible defence, and found that the respondent appeared likely to repeat similar statements which would constitute sub-judice interference with ongoing litigation. The court balanced protection of reputation rights against freedom of speech, exercising caution but concluding this was a clear case warranting exceptional relief.

Outcome

Temporary injunction granted pending hearing of main suit

Facts

The applicant, Dr. Joyce Nalunga Birimumaaso, a Member of the Leadership Code Tribunal and senior advocate, brought an application for a temporary injunction against the respondent, Deborah Kuteesa Namazzi. The applicant alleged that the respondent authored, published and circulated false, malicious and defamatory statements through various media platforms and letters to government offices, including the Inspector General of Government. The allegedly defamatory material included a newspaper article in the Weekend Vision on 15 June 2024 titled "Leadership Code Tribunal Member in Family Feud" which stated the applicant had been dragged to court over allegedly facilitating an unlawful land transaction. The respondent's letter to the IGG concerned alleged fraud in an estate matter. The applicant claimed the campaign of misinformation posed a serious threat to her reputation, integrity and ability to perform her duties as a Tribunal member. The respondent filed an affidavit in reply but it was not commissioned. The application arose from Civil Suit No. 506 of 2024.

Issues

  1. Whether the application has merits for the grant of an order of temporary injunction to restrain publication of allegedly defamatory statements.

Orders

  • A temporary injunction doth issue restraining the respondent and her agents from continuing to write, infer, publish or circulate false, malicious and defamatory statements against the applicant on different main stream and social media platforms and to Government of Uganda offices pending the hearing and determination of the main suit.
  • The costs shall be in the cause.

Rules and key headnotes

Defamation — Interlocutory Injunction — Test for Grant in Defamation Cases
In defamation cases, courts exercise jurisdiction to grant interlocutory injunctions with great caution and only in the clearest of cases where: (a) the statement is unarguably defamatory; (b) there is no good ground for the statement to be true; (c) there is no other defence which might succeed; and (d) there is evidence of an intention to repeat or publish the defamatory statement.
Defamation — Rationale for Cautious Approach to Interlocutory Relief
Courts are generally more cautious about granting interlocutory injunctions in defamation cases because of the public interest in freedom of speech and the need to avoid interfering with such a right prior to determination of the merits at trial, where the falsity or truth of statements and defences can be tested through disclosure and cross-examination.
Defamation — Repetition of Defamatory Statement — Fresh Cause of Action
Each time the originator of a defamatory statement repeats it, he publishes it anew and a fresh cause of action arises. Not only is the author of the defamatory statement liable but also those who repeat it.
Temporary Injunction — Exercise of Judicial Discretion — Principles
The grant of a temporary injunction is an exercise of judicial discretion which must be exercised judiciously and cautiously. A party is not entitled to this relief as a matter of right. Grant of temporary injunction being an equitable remedy, discretion must be exercised in favour of the applicant only if the court is satisfied that unless the respondent is restrained, irreparable loss or damage will be caused to the applicant.
Defamation — Value of Reputation as Personal Right
The right to reputation is acknowledged as an inherent personal right of every person. A person's reputation is property and perhaps more valuable than any other property. The amount of injury by defamation far exceeds that of loss of property when comparing the degree of suffering occasioned by loss of character with that occasioned by loss of property.

Legislation cited (4)

Cases cited (8)

  • Equator International Distributors Ltd v Beiersdorf East Africa Ltd & Others (Miscellaneous Application No. 1127 of 2014)
  • Yahaya Kariisa v Attorney General & Another (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 7 of 1994)
  • Titus Tayebwa v Fred Bogere and Eric Mukasa (Civil Appeal No. 3 of 2009)
  • Giella v Cassman Brown [1973] EA 358
  • Francis Atwoli and 5 Others v Hon Kazungu Kambi and 3 others (High Court Civil Suit No. 60 of 2015)
  • Cheserem v Immediate Media Services and 4 others [2000] EA 371
  • Greene v Associated Newspapers Ltd [2005] QB 972
  • Chin Bay Ching v Merchant Ventures Pte Ltd [2005] 3 SLR(R) 142

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Nalunga v Kuteesa (Miscellaneous Application 1217 of 2024) [2025] UGHCCD 17 (14 February 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.