Wakilii

Ssemambo & Another v Byekwaso & 13 Others (CIVIL SUIT NO. 168 OF 2018)

High Court · [2019] UGHCCD 261 · 2019 Preliminary Objection Upheld AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
First instance civil suit for defamation dismissed on preliminary objection
Decision
Suit dismissed on preliminary objection for failure to disclose a cause of action

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

A plaint alleging defamation arising from statements made during a community meeting convened to address allegations of witchcraft does not disclose a cause of action where the defendants acted in good faith in attempting to resolve a community health crisis. The court held that actions taken by local council committee members in investigating complaints and holding meetings to find solutions to witchcraft allegations cannot constitute defamation absent malice, and dismissed the suit on preliminary objection.

Outcome

Suit dismissed on preliminary objection for failure to disclose a cause of action

Facts

The Plaintiffs owned rental housing units in Wamala village. In April 2018, a woman named Nanyonjo Getrude developed serious health complications and allegedly mentioned the Plaintiffs' names during episodes where she lost consciousness. Her parents reported the matter to the LC1 Committee. An exorcist, the 3rd Defendant, was hired and allegedly identified the Plaintiffs as the cause of Nanyonjo's problems through his healing prayers. The LC1 Committee, comprising all the Defendants, convened a meeting at Cabana Restaurant on 12 April 2018 to address the situation. The Plaintiffs attended this meeting where they were asked to explain Nanyonjo's hallucinations and why she was mentioning their names. No resolution was reached, but the Plaintiffs were cautioned to live harmoniously with their neighbours. The Plaintiffs subsequently filed suit claiming defamation, loss of rental income, assault, and threats to life and property, seeking UGX 130 million in damages, a permanent injunction, and public apologies.

Issues

  1. Whether the plaint discloses a cause of action against the Defendants

Orders

  • The preliminary objection is allowed.
  • The plaint is dismissed for not disclosing a cause of action.
  • The Defendants are awarded costs to be paid by the Plaintiffs.

Rules and key headnotes

Defamation — Elements of Cause of Action — Absence of Malice
A statement or allegation made in the course of good faith efforts by community leaders to resolve a local problem does not constitute defamation absent evidence of malice, even where the statement implicates individuals in serious allegations such as witchcraft.
Preliminary Objections — Pleadings — Disclosure of Cause of Action
In determining whether a plaint discloses a cause of action, the court must consider the plaint alone together with anything attached so as to form part of it, and must determine whether the essential elements of the alleged tort are pleaded and supported by the facts disclosed.
Defamation — Standard of Proof — Reputation and Esteem
To prove defamation, a plaintiff must adduce evidence from colleagues or members of society who knew the plaintiff before publication of the allegedly defamatory statement and who can testify as to how the right-thinking members of society regarded the plaintiff following the publication.

Cases cited (11)

  • Francis Lukooya Mukoome & Anor v Editor in Chief Bukedde Newspaper & 2 Others (Civil Suit No. 351 of 2006)
  • David Etuket & Anor v The New Vision Printing and Publishing Corporation (HCCS No. 86 of 1996)
  • Ratcliffe v Evans (1892) 2 QB 524
  • Geofrey Ssejjoba v Rev. Patrick Rwabigonji (HCCS No. 1 of 1976)
  • A.K Oils & Fats v Bidco (U) (HCCS No. 715 of 2005)
  • Ntabgoba v Editor New Vision (2001-2005) 2 HCB 209
  • Chaina Movat & Voice of Kigezi v Kyarimpa Enid (HCCA No. 42 of 2008)
  • Figueredo & 4 Others v Editor of Sunday Nation & 4 Others (1968) EA 501
  • London Artists v Litler (1969) 2 All ER
  • Rev. Besigye v Amama Mbabazi (HCCS No. 104 of 2002)
  • Kebirungi v Road Trainers Ltd & 2 Others [2008] HCB 72

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Ssemambo & Another v Byekwaso & 13 Others (CIVIL SUIT NO. 168 OF 2018) [2019] UGHCCD 261 (17 July 2019)
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.