Wakilii

Odong & 4 Ors v Attorney General & 3 Ors (Civil Suit No. 488 of 1998)

High Court · [2002] UGHC 38 · 2002 Judgment for Plaintiffs (Partial) AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
First instance civil suit for defamation arising from press conference and publications
Decision
Plaintiffs succeeded against defendants 3 and 4 (Radio Freedom and Rupiny) but failed against Attorney General and The New Vision

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

Held that words spoken at a press conference by military officers and published in Rupiny newspaper, naming the plaintiffs as collaborators with the Lord's Resistance Army, were defamatory. The Attorney General was not vicariously liable for statements made by a military officer at a press conference outside the scope of employment. The New Vision was not liable as it did not name the plaintiffs. Defendants 3 and 4 (Radio Freedom and Rupiny) held liable for publication of defamatory material. Each plaintiff awarded general damages of UGX 10,000,000.

Outcome

Plaintiffs succeeded against defendants 3 and 4 (Radio Freedom and Rupiny) but failed against Attorney General and The New Vision

Facts

Five Catholic priests serving in the Archdiocese of Gulu were named at a press conference by Colonel James Kazini (Commander Fourth Division UPDF) and Lt. Shaban Bantariza (Public Relations Officer) as collaborators with the Lord's Resistance Army and co-coordinators involved in the abduction of girls from Aboke School. The allegations were broadcast on Radio Uganda and Radio Freedom and published in Rupiny newspaper. The plaintiffs denied the allegations but received no apology or retraction. Only the Attorney General filed a defence, which was struck out for non-compliance with Order 6 rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules. Hearing proceeded ex parte against all defendants. Four witnesses testified that the publications caused the plaintiffs to feel like cheats and criminals unworthy of their priestly vocation.

Issues

  1. Whether the plaintiffs were defamed
  2. Whether the defendants are liable
  3. What relief if any is available

Orders

  • Judgment for the plaintiffs against defendants 3 and 4 (Radio Freedom and Rupiny).
  • General damages of Shs. 10,000,000/= awarded to each of the plaintiffs.
  • Court rate of interest on the damages and costs from the date of judgment until realization in full.
  • Costs of the suit awarded to the plaintiffs.
  • Claim against the Attorney General dismissed.
  • Claim against The New Vision dismissed.
  • Punitive/aggravated damages refused.

Rules and key headnotes

Defamation — Publication — Third Party Publication Required
Defamation belongs to the class of torts in which the defendant becomes liable to the plaintiff by reason of a transaction with a third party, not for publication to the plaintiff himself.
Defamation — Words Imputing Criminal Offences — Test for Defamatory Meaning
Where words complained of impute commission of criminal offences by the plaintiff, those words are defamatory. The exact offence need not be specified; words involving a general charge of criminality will suffice provided they impute some offence for which the plaintiff can be made to suffer corporally by way of punishment.
Defamation — Vicarious Liability — Scope of Employment
An employer is not vicariously liable for defamatory statements made by an employee at a press conference where such conduct is not within the due course or scope of employment and may constitute a frolic of the employee's own.
Defamation — Publication — Reference to Plaintiff Required
A publication, even if defamatory, must refer to the plaintiff in order that it is defamatory of him. Where a publication does not name the plaintiff, no liability arises.
Defamation — Authorization of Publication — Press Interviews
To establish liability for libel, a plaintiff must prove that the published words represented substantially what the defendant said and that the defendant expressly or impliedly authorized their publication. Authorization should very readily be implied when a person has agreed to give an interview to a press reporter, and once that fact is established, the onus shifts to the person who alleges he did not authorize publication.
Defamation — Presumption of Falsity
The publication of words defamatory of the plaintiff gives rise to a prima facie cause of action. The law presumes in the plaintiff's favour that the words are false, unless and until the defendant proves the contrary.

Legislation cited (2)

Cases cited (12)

  • Gantley on Libel and Slander (8th edition) para 5 at page 6
  • Blaze Babigumira v Hanns Besigye (High Court Civil Suit No. 744 of 1992)
  • Odongkara vs. Astles [1970] EA 377
  • East African Standard vs. Gitau [1970] EA 678
  • Muwonge vs. Attorney General [1967] EA 17
  • Poland vs. Parr (John) & Sons [1927] 1K.B. 236, 240
  • Ilkiw vs. Samuels [1963] 1WLR 991, 997, 1002, 1004
  • Construction Engineers & Builders Ltd v The New Vision and 3 others (High Court Civil Suit No. 67 of 1991)
  • Lakidi vs. Lalobo [1971] EA 87, 89B
  • Rev. Fr. John Nendegger vs. The Telecast Newspaper & 2 others [1988 - 1990] HCB 155
  • Mangal vs. Sharma [1968] EA 620
  • Joshua Wanume Kibedi v FAD and Another (High Court Civil Suit No. 69 of 1987)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Odong & 4 Ors v Attorney General & 3 Ors (Civil Suit No. 488 of 1998) [2002] UGHC 38 (1 March 2002)
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.