The New Vision Printing & Publishing Co. Ltd and Another v Kirya (Civil Appeal No.39 of 2010)

Observed later treatment

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.

Holding

The Court of Appeal held that a freelance journalist is not an employee and is free to sell his services to anyone. The newspaper's discontinuation of the working relationship was merely a termination of that relationship and, the Employment Act being inapplicable, could not be unlawful. The published notice stating the respondent was no longer a freelance journalist for the newspaper was true, and truth is a complete defence to defamation. The newspaper was justified, having engaged the respondent for about six years and issued him an identification card, in notifying the public and its news sources. The appeal was allowed, the High Court judgment set aside, and the suit dismissed.

Outcome

Appeal allowed; High Court judgment set aside and suit dismissed

Facts

The respondent worked as a freelance journalist contributing content to the first appellant, New Vision Printing & Publishing Co. Ltd, for about six years, being paid a fee per article approved for publication and issued an identity card to access news sources. His services were discontinued by the second appellant. On 31 January 2007 the appellants ran a public notice in their newspaper stating that the respondent was no longer a freelance journalist for the New Vision, was not authorised to represent it, and warning that whoever dealt with him on matters relating to New Vision did so at their own risk. The respondent instituted High Court Civil Suit No. 144 of 2007 seeking general damages for libel and/or unlawful and unfair dismissal. The appellants denied liability, contending the publication was factual, not malicious, and within their rights. The trial judge found the respondent was not an employee but held the termination unlawful and the publication defamatory. The appellants appealed.

Issues

1. Whether the trial judge erred in concluding that the discontinuation of the working relationship between a freelance journalist and the newspaper amounted to an unlawful termination.
2. Whether the notice published by the newspaper stating that the respondent was no longer a freelance journalist defamed the respondent.

Orders

• Ground one of the appeal allowed.
• Ground two of the appeal allowed.
• Judgment of the High Court set aside and substituted with an order dismissing the suit.
• Appeal allowed with costs.

Rules and key headnotes

Legislation cited (4)

• Press and Journalist Act cap 105 s.40(2)
• Press and Journalist Act cap 105, 4th Schedule article 4
• Employment Act s.66
• Rules of the Court of Appeal r.76(3)

Cases cited (6)

• Bridge v Campbell Discount Company Ltd [1962] 1 All ER 385
• Ntabgoba v Editor-In-Chief, New Vision and Another (HCCS No. 113 of 2003)
• Astaire v Campling [1965] 3 All ER 666
• Shah v Uganda Argus [1971] EA 362
• Tolley v J.B. Fry & Sons Ltd [1930] 1 KB 467
• Morgan v Odhams Press [1970] 1 WLR 820

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.

• Yusuf Baliruno v Central Broadcasting Services (Labour Dispute Reference No. 92 of 2020)

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