Wakilii

Red Pepper Publications Limited & Another v Wako Wambuzi (Civil Appeal No. 127 of 2018)

Court of Appeal · [2020] UGCA 2076 · 2020 Appeal Partly Allowed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
First appeal from High Court judgment awarding damages in a defamation suit
Decision
Appeal partly allowed; general damages reduced from UGX 375,000,000 to UGX 150,000,000, exemplary damages of UGX 50,000,000 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.

Judicial journey

Appeal & case history

2 linked decisions

Follow this matter from the decision below through each appellate court.

Affirmed The decision below was upheld.
See the court’s words
“paid on both the general and exemplary damages on the terms set and ordered by the trial Court is also upheld.”
Court of Appeal This decision
Red Pepper Publications Limited & Another v Wako Wambuzi (Civil Appeal No. 127 of 2018) [2020] UGCA 2076 (20 July 2020)
[2020] UGCA 2076
No later appellate decision was located in the Wakilii corpus. Linked from court records and operative language in the judgments.

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 upheld the trial Judge's finding that the article, imputing that the retired Chief Justice was heavily indebted, dishonest and living beyond his means, was false and defamatory; damage is presumed in libel actionable per se. However, the award of UGX 375,000,000 in general damages was excessive and inconsistent with comparable Ugandan awards, and the trial Judge had wrongly treated the appellants' published apology as no apology. The general damages were reduced to UGX 150,000,000. The award of UGX 50,000,000 in exemplary damages was upheld. The appeal partly succeeded and the respondent was awarded three-quarters of the appeal costs.

Outcome

Appeal partly allowed; general damages reduced from UGX 375,000,000 to UGX 150,000,000, exemplary damages of UGX 50,000,000 upheld

Facts

On 11 October 2015 the appellants published in their Sunday Pepper newspaper an article titled "100 Most Indebted Personalities Revealed", which included the respondent, a retired three-time Chief Justice of Uganda. The article stated that the respondent, proprietor of Greenhill schools, was struggling with a loan of nearly UGX 10 billion from a commercial bank and was under pressure over loan interest, portraying him as living beyond his means and unable to repay debts. The respondent, through his lawyers, demanded an apology and damages of UGX 750,000,000. The appellants published an item headed "I don't have any debts in Banks - Wako Wambuzi", partly in reported speech attributed to the respondent's lawyers. The respondent sued for libel. The article's contents were established as false and largely uncontroverted at trial. The High Court awarded UGX 375,000,000 general damages, UGX 50,000,000 exemplary damages, interest, a permanent injunction and costs. The appellants appealed against the finding of defamation and the quantum of damages.

Issues

  1. Whether the appellants' publication in the Sunday Pepper concerning the respondent was false and defamatory.
  2. Whether the respondent was entitled to the general and exemplary damages awarded, and whether the trial Judge's award of general damages was excessive.
  3. Whether the article published by the appellants amounted to a valid apology capable of mitigating damages.

Orders

  • Grounds 1 and 2 of the appeal dismissed for lack of merit.
  • Grounds 3 and 4 of the appeal allowed.
  • Award of UGX 375,000,000 general damages set aside and substituted with an award of UGX 150,000,000 general damages.
  • Grounds 5 and 6 dismissed; award of UGX 50,000,000 exemplary damages upheld.
  • Order for interest on both general and exemplary damages upheld.
  • General and exemplary damages to be paid by the appellants jointly and severally.
  • Respondent awarded three-quarters of the costs of the appeal and full costs of the suit in the lower court.

Rules and key headnotes

Defamation — Libel — Meaning of Defamatory Statement
A statement is defamatory where it tends to lower the plaintiff in the estimation of right-thinking members of society generally; the relevant meaning is that which the notional ordinary reasonable reader would attach to it on an objective assessment, not that attached by particular readers.
Defamation — Libel Actionable Per Se — Presumption of Damage
In an action for defamation actionable per se, damage to the claimant's reputation is presumed as an irrebuttable presumption of law and need not be proved; a plaintiff need not show that he was actually shunned or ridiculed.
Defamation — Apology — Effect on Liability and Mitigation
An apology is not a defence to liability in defamation but may mitigate damages; a valid apology consists of a regretful acknowledgment that the defamatory matter was incorrect and an expression of regret, and its validity does not depend on the maker first establishing that the published matter was true.
Defamation — General Damages — Consistency with Comparable Awards
In assessing general damages for defamation a court must maintain consistency with past awards in comparable local cases; awards from foreign jurisdictions may guide the court only when adjusted to Uganda's economic and social conditions and exchange rates.
Damages — Appellate Interference with Trial Court's Award
An appellate court will not interfere with a trial court's award of damages unless the assessment was based on a wrong principle of law, or the amount is so high or so low as to be an entirely erroneous estimate of the damages to which the successful party is entitled.
Defamation — Exemplary Damages — Basis for Award
Exemplary damages in defamation are punitive and deterrent, awarded where the defendant's conduct is calculated to make a profit or discloses contumelious disregard of the plaintiff's rights, independently of proved actual loss.
Defamation — Reputation of Public Figures — Effect of Retirement
The reputation of a retired public officer such as a retired Chief Justice remains entitled to protection, and the fact that the plaintiff retired years before the publication is no reason to permit his reputation to be abused.

Legislation cited (3)

Cases cited (42)

  • [2019] UKSC 27
  • [1936] 2 All ER 1237
  • [1995] EWCA Civ 23
  • [1996] 2 All ER 35
  • [1997] QB 587
  • [1972] AC 1027
  • [1971] 2 All ER 187
  • Uren vs John Fairfax & Sons Pty. Ltd. 117 C.L.R. at p. 150
  • [1994] QB 670
  • [1964] 1 All ER 367
  • Kifamunte Henry v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 10 of 1997)
  • (1957) EA 336
  • (1972) EA 32
  • Charles B Bitwire v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 23 of 1985)
  • Morgan Vs Ohams Press [1970] WLR
  • Crown Beverages Ltd v Sendu Edward (Civil Appeal No. 1 of 2005)
  • Bank of Uganda v Betty Tinkamanyire (Civil Appeal No. 12 of 2007)
  • (1944) EACA 1
  • [1936] 1 KB 192
  • [1975] EA 285
  • [1971] EA 81
  • A K Oils & Fats (U) Ltd v Bidco Uganda Ltd (Civil Suit No. 715 of 2005)
  • Peter Onega v John Jaramoji Oloya (Civil Suit No. 114 of 2009)
  • Geoffrey Ssejjoba v Rev Patrick Rwabigonji (Civil Suit No. 1 of 1976)
  • Rebecca Kadaga v Richard Tusiime and 2 Others (Civil Suit No. 56 of 2013)
  • [2004] 2 EA 234
  • Esther Kisaakye v Sarah Kadama (Civil Suit No. 194 of 2013)
  • Faith Mwondha v Monitor Publications Ltd (Civil Suit No. 11 of 2012)
  • Specioza Wandira Kazibwe v The Independent Publications Ltd (Civil Suit No. 105 of 2010)
  • Best Kemigisha v The Red Pepper Publications Ltd (Civil Suit No. 162 of 2012)
  • Katuntu v The Editor in Chief of the Red Pepper Newspaper (Civil Suit No. 301 of 2014)
  • [2012] eKLR
  • [1957] 1 EA 352
  • [2007] eKLR
  • Ntabgoba Herbert v The New Vision (Civil Suit No. 113 of 2003)
  • L E M Mukasa Kikonyogo v The New Vision (Civil Suit No. 166 of 2008)
  • Justice Sempa Lugayizi vs Teddy Ssezi Cheeye and Uganda Confidential
  • [2005] eKLR
  • [2005] eKLR
  • [2008] eKLR
  • [2010] eKLR
  • [2002] eKLR

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Red Pepper Publications Limited & Another v Wako Wambuzi (Civil Appeal No. 127 of 2018) [2020] UGCA 2076 (20 July 2020)
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.