Wakilii

New Vision Publishing Company Limited and Another v Nsaba Buturo (Civil Appeal 284 of 2019)

Court of Appeal · [2023] UGCA 361 · 2023 Appeal Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Civil appeal from High Court judgment in a defamation suit
Decision
Appeal dismissed; High Court judgment and award of UGX 150,000,000 general damages 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 by New Vision and its columnist against a defamation judgment in favour of Nsaba Buturo. The court held that the statement that the respondent was the 'main man behind' the Panda Gari operations was a statement of fact, not opinion, and had not been proved true. The defence of fair comment failed because there was no factual basis linking the respondent to torture, disappearance or killing of people. Where a defamatory statement imputes a criminal offence, the defendant must prove commission of that offence on a higher degree of the balance of probabilities. The award of UGX 150,000,000 in general damages was within the trial judge's discretion and not excessive.

Outcome

Appeal dismissed; High Court judgment and award of UGX 150,000,000 general damages upheld

Facts

On 23 January 2010, The New Vision newspaper published an article by the second appellant, John Nagenda, entitled "My unplanned overthrow of Rwanda". The article described the Panda Gari system during the Obote II regime, in which suspected persons were rounded up, loaded onto trucks and taken away, with many never returning. It stated that "the main man in this was the then much feared Nsaba Buturo" and called on him to apologise for his actions. The respondent, then Minister of Ethics and Integrity and a former District Commissioner of Kampala, sued for libel. He admitted being District Commissioner of Kampala but denied involvement in security operations, contending these were the preserve of police and army. The appellants pleaded justification, qualified privilege and fair comment. The trial judge found the article defamatory, rejected the defences, granted a permanent injunction and awarded UGX 150,000,000 general damages. The appellants appealed on evaluation of evidence and quantum.

Issues

  1. Whether the trial judge erred in finding that the appellants failed to prove the truth of the allegations and that the defence of fair comment could not succeed.
  2. Whether the publication complained of defamed the respondent in light of the respondent's admissions.
  3. Whether the award of general damages of UGX 150,000,000 was outrageously high.

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed with costs.

Rules and key headnotes

Defamation — Fair Comment — Distinction Between Statement of Fact and Opinion
The defence of fair comment applies only to expressions of opinion based on facts proved to be true, and not to assertions of fact; an assertion that a person was the main man behind a notorious operation is a statement of fact requiring proof, not a protected comment.
Defamation — Justification — Imputation of Criminal Offence
Where a defamatory statement imputes the commission of a criminal offence, the defendant relying on justification must prove the commission of the offence charged, and the more serious the charge the higher the degree of probability required on the balance of probabilities.
Defamation — The 'Sting' of the Defamation — Relevance of Evidence
In a defamation action the defendant must adduce evidence supporting the sting or substance of the defamatory allegation; evidence of collateral matters not connected to the sting does not sustain a defence of justification or fair comment.
Defamation — General Damages — Interference by Appellate Court
An award of general damages for defamation made within the range of comparable decided cases and reflecting the gravity of the defamation and social status of the plaintiff is within the discretion of the trial judge and will not be interfered with as excessive; failure to prove the truth of a criminal imputation may aggravate damages.

Legislation cited (2)

Cases cited (19)

  • Banco Arabe Espanol vs. Bank of Uganda SCCS 8 1998
  • New Vision v Geoffrey Sekandi and Another (Civil Appeal No. 33 of 2011)
  • Ntabgoba Vs Editor in Chief of the New Vision News Paper & Anor [2004]2 EA
  • Godfrey Amanyire Vs. The New Vision [1999] KALR
  • Dr Specioza Wandera Kazibwe v The Independent Publications Ltd and 3 Others (HCCS No. 105 of 2010)
  • Dakhyl Vs. Labouchere [1908] 2 KB
  • Subramaniam Vs. The Public Prosecutor [1956] 1 W.L.R. 965
  • Pearce v Argus Printing & Publishing Co. Ltd 1943 CPD 737
  • Democratic Alliance vs. African National Congress & Independent Electoral Commission 2015 ZACC 1
  • Grobberlaar V Newsgroup Newspaper Ltd (2002) WLR 3024
  • Monitor Publications Ltd v Ricky Nelson Asiimwe (Civil Appeal No. 16 of 2015)
  • Red Pepper Publishing Ltd & Anor v Rtd Chief Justice Samuel William Wako Wambuzi (Civil Appeal No. 0128 of 2017)
  • John Vs. MGN Ltd (1997) Q.B 586
  • Esther Kisaakye v Sarah Kadama (HCCS No. 194 of 2013)
  • Hon. Specioza Wandera Kazibwe vs. The Independent Publications Ltd
  • Best Kemigisha v The Red Pepper Publications Ltd (Civil Suit No. 162 of 2012)
  • Abdu Katuntu v Editor in Chief of the Red Pepper Newspaper & Anor (Civil Suit No. 301 of 2014)
  • Peters v Sunday Post Limited [1958] 1 EA 424
  • Sim Vs Stretch, (1936) 10 All ER 1237

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

New Vision Publishing Company Limited and Another v Nsaba Buturo (Civil Appeal 284 of 2019) [2023] UGCA 361 (28 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.