Wakilii

Rtd. CJ . Wako Wambuzi v Editor in Chief, Red Pepper Publications Limited and Another (Civil Suit, No 305 of 2015)

High Court · [2017] UGHCCD 220 · 2017 Judgment for Plaintiff AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
First instance civil suit for defamation (libel)
Decision
Judgment entered for the plaintiff; defendants to pay damages, interest and costs, and permanently restrained from further publishing similar defamatory statements

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 held that the newspaper article published by the defendants falsely and defamatorily portrayed the retired Chief Justice as an extravagant, dishonest person struggling with unpaid loans, when in fact he had no such debts and was not the proprietor of the business named. The publication lowered his reputation and breached professional ethics standards. General damages of UGX 375 million and exemplary damages of UGX 50 million were awarded, with a permanent injunction granted.

Outcome

Judgment entered for the plaintiff; defendants to pay damages, interest and costs, and permanently restrained from further publishing similar defamatory statements

Facts

The plaintiff, a retired three-time Chief Justice, sued the defendants for libel after they published an article alleging he was struggling with a UGX 10 billion loan from a bank, lived extravagantly beyond his means, and was proprietor of Greenhill Schools. The plaintiff testified he had no such loan, was not the proprietor of the schools (which were founded by his late wife and others), and that any loan held by Greenhill Holdings had been settled six months before the publication. The defendants admitted the loan had been paid before publication and acknowledged the plaintiff was not the proprietor, but initially defended the suit and pleaded truth before conceding the statements were incorrect in a later publication.

Issues

  1. Whether the publication was false and defamatory of the Plaintiff?
  2. Whether the Plaintiff is entitled to the remedies prayed for?

Orders

  • The Defendants shall pay to the Plaintiff general damages for libel in the sum of UGX 375,000,000.
  • The Defendants shall pay to the Plaintiff exemplary damages in the sum of UGX 50,000,000.
  • The Defendants shall pay interest on the sums awarded at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of judgment until payment in full.
  • A permanent injunction is hereby issued against the Defendants restraining them and their agents or persons under their control and direction from further publishing similar defamatory statements of the Plaintiff.
  • The costs of this suit shall be paid by the Defendants to the Plaintiff.

Rules and key headnotes

Defamation — Libel — Definition and Elements
A publication is defamatory if it tends to bring a person into hatred, contempt or ridicule, or if the words tend to lower the claimant in the estimation of right-thinking members of society generally or if they tend to cause the claimant to be shunned or avoided.
Defamation — Natural and Ordinary Meaning — Imputation to Reasonable Reader
In determining whether words are defamatory, the court must ascertain the meaning that would be imputed in the mind and eyes of the reasonable reader or person, taking the natural and ordinary meaning of the words published.
Defamation — Defence of Truth — Plea of Truth Inconsistent with Apology
A defendant who pleads truth as a defence to defamation cannot subsequently rely on a purported apology as mitigation, as this amounts to approbation and reprobation, and the defendant is estopped from doing so.
Defamation — Assessment of General Damages — Relevant Factors
In assessing compensatory damages for defamation, relevant factors include the reputation of the claimant, the gravity of the libel, the extent of publication, the effect of the publication, and whether a plea of truth was successful.
Defamation — Exemplary Damages — Punitive and Deterrent Purpose
Exemplary damages, which are punitive or penal in nature, may be awarded to punish and deter the defendant from repeating wrongful conduct, particularly where the defendant's conduct has been calculated to make a profit which may well exceed the compensation payable to the plaintiff.
Burden and Standard of Proof — Balance of Probabilities
The burden of proof lies on the party who asserts, and the standard of proof in civil matters is on a balance of probabilities, meaning that where it is more probable than not, the burden is discharged, but if the probabilities are equal, it is not.

Legislation cited (3)

Cases cited (9)

  • Miller v Minister of Pensions [1947] 2 All ER 372
  • Stubbs Ltd v Russell [1913] AC 386
  • John v MGN Ltd [1996] 2 All ER 47
  • Hon Rebecca Kadaga v Richard Tusiime and 2 Others (High Court Civil Suit No. 56 of 2013)
  • Samuel Ndungu'u Mukunyu vs. National Media Group
  • Justice Sempa Lugayizi v Teddy Ssezi-Cheeye and Another (High Court Civil Suit No. 644 of 2001)
  • Ntabgoba Herbert v The New Vision (High Court Civil Suit No. 113 of 2003)
  • Rookes v Barnard [1964] AC 1129
  • Obongo v Municipal Council of Kisumu [1971] EA 91

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Rtd. CJ . Wako Wambuzi v Editor in Chief, Red Pepper Publications Limited and Another (Civil Suit, No 305 of 2015) [2017] UGHCCD 220 (4 May 2017)
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.