Wakilii

Silver Cohens Okullu v Santos Okot Lapollo (Civil Suit no.26 Of 2004) (Civil Suit no.26 of 2004)

High Court · [2008] UGHC 83 · 2008 Judgment for Plaintiff AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
First instance civil suit for defamation and slander
Decision
Judgment entered for plaintiff with damages of UGX 10,000,000 plus interest and costs

Observed later treatment

Cited — treatment unverified cited in 1 (treatment unverified) Sequitur — Uganda’s citator · Derived from citing cases in the Wakilii corpus — not an assertion that this case is good law.

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.

No adverse treatment recorded Cited 1 time with no adverse treatment recorded; not yet tested on the merits. Derived from citing cases in the Wakilii corpus — a deterministic signal, not legal advice.

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 the defendant's public statements at Bomah Hotel accusing the plaintiff of being a corrupt magistrate and rebel collaborator were defamatory and not privileged. The defendant's communications to certain government officials were privileged, but those made publicly and to certain individuals were not. The plaintiff, a Chief Magistrate, was entitled to compensatory and exemplary damages of UGX 10,000,000 for injury to reputation. The court considered the limited scope of publication, the absence of apology, and the defendant's continued contemptuous conduct in assessing quantum.

Outcome

Judgment entered for plaintiff with damages of UGX 10,000,000 plus interest and costs

Facts

The plaintiff, a Chief Magistrate in the Uganda Judiciary, and the defendant, Resident District Commissioner for Kitgum District, were both public officials. On 13 October 2003 at approximately 7:30 p.m. at Bomah Hotel, Kitgum Town, the defendant publicly stated in the presence of several people including Louis Odongo, an advocate, that the plaintiff was a corrupt magistrate and a rebel collaborator who was collecting money and taking it to Sudan to arm rebels. The defendant stated he would use his powers to ensure the plaintiff was removed from government service, and claimed he had already written to the President through the Attorney General. The defendant admitted causing investigations to be carried out on the plaintiff in his official capacity. The Judiciary later investigated and found the allegations to be unfounded. The defendant never apologised and in his written statement of defence asserted that the plaintiff had no esteem, respect or morals to defend.

Issues

  1. Whether the statements complained of were defamatory of the plaintiff.
  2. Whether the said statements were made by the defendant.
  3. Whether the statements complained of are privileged.
  4. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the remedies prayed for.

Orders

  • Judgment entered for the plaintiff against the defendant.
  • Defendant to pay UGX 10,000,000 as compensatory and exemplary damages.
  • Interest at 18% per annum on damages from date of judgment until payment in full.
  • Costs of the suit awarded to the plaintiff.

Rules and key headnotes

Tort Law — Defamation — Test for Defamatory Statement
A defamatory statement is one which tends to lower a person in the estimation of right thinking members of society generally or to cause him to be shunned or avoided or to expose him to hatred, contempt or ridicule or to convey an imputation on that person disparaging or injurious to that person in his or her office, profession, calling, trade or business.
Tort Law — Defamation — Actionability and Falsity
To be actionable, an offending statement must not only cause damages to plaintiff but must also be false and defamatory of the plaintiff in that it must contain expressly or by implication a statement of fact or expression of opinion that lowers the plaintiff's reputation in the estimation of a reasonable person hearing or reading it who had knowledge of such other facts as that person might reasonably be expected to possess.
Tort Law — Defamation — Burden of Proof
The plaintiff bears the burden to prove that the words complained of are defamatory. Where the words are defamatory in their natural and ordinary meaning, the plaintiff may only prove their utterance or publication. Once the plaintiff has discharged this burden, the defendant must show from the circumstances in which the words were used or from the manner of their utterance or publication or other facts known to those who received the words that the words would not be understood by reasonable people to convey the defamatory meaning claimed.
Tort Law — Defamation — Qualified Privilege
A defamatory statement, though actionable on ordinary occasions, is not actionable when made on a privileged occasion unless malice is proved. Verbal statements made in a bar, a public place and in the presence of bar customers are not covered by any privileged occasion. However, communications by a Resident District Commissioner to the Attorney General, Minister of Justice and Constitutional Affairs, Minister in charge of Presidency, and Minister for Security regarding accusations against a judicial officer in the course of official duty are privileged.
Tort Law — Defamation — Assessment of Damages
In assessing damages for defamation, the court takes note of the mode and extent of publication, the whole conduct of the defendant from the time allegations were made up to the time of verdict, bearing in mind injury to the feelings, the anxiety and uncertainty undergone in mitigation, and the absence of an apology. The quantum awarded must also reflect the status of the plaintiff and the scope of publication compared to precedent cases.

Cases cited (7)

  • Gatley on Libel and Slander: 8th Edition Para 31
  • Astaire v Campling (1966) WLR 34
  • Jeremiah Herbert Ntabgoba v The Editor in Chief, The New Vision Newspaper & Another (HC Civil Suit No. 113 of 2003)
  • Shah v Uganda Argus (1971) EA 362
  • Munster v Lamb (1883) 11 QBD 588
  • H.M.B Kayondo v The New Vision Printing & Publishing Corporation & Another (HC Civil Suit No. 137 of 1989)
  • Hon. Justice Lugayizi Sempa v Teddy Seezi Cheye & Another (HC Civil Suit No. 644 of 2001)

Cases citing this judgment (1)

How later Ugandan judgments in the Wakilii corpus have cited this case. Treatment labels come from Sequitur — Uganda’s citator — each backed by a verbatim span from the citing judgment, and are not an assertion that this case is, or is not, good law.

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Silver Cohens Okullu v Santos Okot Lapollo (Civil Suit no.26 Of 2004) (Civil Suit no.26 of 2004) [2008] UGHC 83 (27 March 2008)
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.