Wakilii

The Red Pepper Publications Ltd v The Disciplinary Committee Media Council & Attorney General (Miscellaneous Cause No. 73 OF 2009)

High Court · [2018] UGHCCD 30 · 2018 Application Partly Allowed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for judicial review of a decision by the Media Council Disciplinary Committee asserting jurisdiction over complaints against a media house
Decision
Declarations granted in favour of applicant; prerogative orders refused; first respondent struck off as incompetent party

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

Held that section 31(1) of the Press and Journalist Act permits complaints only against individual journalists for professional misconduct, not against media houses or corporate publishers. The disciplinary committee's jurisdiction is limited to enforcing the code of conduct for journalists contained in the Fourth Schedule, which applies only to natural persons. Applying the golden rule of statutory interpretation and the ejusdem generis rule, the word 'publishers' in section 9(1)(c) must be construed to refer to human beings, not corporate entities. Complaints against corporate media houses cannot be entertained by the Media Council Disciplinary Committee.

Outcome

Declarations granted in favour of applicant; prerogative orders refused; first respondent struck off as incompetent party

Facts

The Red Pepper Publications Ltd, a media house, was the subject of three complaints lodged with the Media Council Disciplinary Committee in 2009: MC/002/2009 by Samer Agriculture and Livestock Ltd, MC/003/2009 by Libya Arab People's Bureau, and MC/004/2009 by Habib Kagimu. When MC/003/2009 came before the committee on 23 March 2009, preliminary objections were raised that the committee lacked jurisdiction because section 31 of the Press and Journalist Act permits complaints only against registered journalists, not against media houses. The committee overruled the objection and decided to proceed. The Red Pepper Publications Ltd applied for judicial review seeking declarations that the complaints were wrongly made and that the committee had no jurisdiction to hear them, and seeking orders of certiorari and prohibition.

Issues

  1. Whether a complaint can be competently brought against a media house (as opposed to an individual journalist) before the Media Council Disciplinary Committee under section 31 of the Press and Journalist Act.
  2. Whether the Media Council Disciplinary Committee has jurisdiction to entertain complaints against a media house or publisher as a corporate entity.

Orders

  • Declaration that complaints MC/002/2009, MC/003/2009 and MC/004/2009 were wrongly presented before the first respondent.
  • Declaration that the first respondent had no jurisdiction to entertain those complaints because its sole function is to enforce the code of ethics for journalists contained in the Fourth Schedule to the Press and Journalist Act.
  • Application for certiorari refused.
  • Application for prohibition and injunction refused.
  • First respondent struck off as a party for being an incompetent party incapable of being sued.
  • Costs awarded to the applicant to be paid by the Attorney General.

Rules and key headnotes

Statutory Interpretation — Golden Rule — Application to Clear and Unambiguous Provisions
Where the words of a statute are clear and unambiguous, they must be given effect in their grammatical and ordinary meaning. The grammatical and ordinary sense of the words is to be adhered to unless doing so would lead to some absurdity or some repugnance or inconsistency with the rest of the statute. The onus of showing that the words do not mean what they say lies heavily upon the party who alleges so.
Administrative Law — Media Council — Jurisdiction Limited to Individual Journalists
The jurisdiction of the Media Council Disciplinary Committee under section 31(1) of the Press and Journalist Act is limited to complaints against individual journalists for professional misconduct. A complaint cannot competently be presented against a media house or corporate publisher because professional and ethical conduct are proper attributes of human beings and can be observed only by animate human beings, not by inanimate objects or corporations.
Statutory Interpretation — Ejusdem Generis Rule — Construction of 'Publishers'
Applying the ejusdem generis rule, where a statute refers to 'journalists, editors and publishers', the word 'publishers' must be construed to refer to a human being, not to a corporate entity. The words 'journalist' and 'editors' constitute a genus of human beings, and the word 'publishers', being the last mentioned, must be understood also to refer to a human being of the same genus.
Judicial Review — Certiorari — Grounds for Issuance — Wrongness in Law Distinguished from Illegality in Procedure
Certiorari does not issue to quash a decision merely because the decision is wrong in law. The ground of illegality for the issuance of certiorari differs from the mere wrongness of a decision in law and often relates more to the procedure through which the decision was made, such as lack of jurisdiction. It does not relate to the impugned decision's intrinsic wrongness in law.
Administrative Law — Government Bodies — Capacity to be Sued — Representation by Attorney General
A non-corporate governmental body such as the Media Council is not capable of being sued, even in judicial review proceedings. Under section 10 of the Government Proceedings Act and Article 119 of the Constitution, such a body is constitutionally and statutorily represented by the Attorney General. The inclusion of the non-corporate governmental body as a party to a suit is superfluous, redundant, and illegal.

Legislation cited (9)

Cases cited (2)

  • Grey v Pearson (1857) 6 HLC 61
  • Caledonia Railway v North British Railway (1881) 6 AC 114

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

The Red Pepper Publications Ltd v The Disciplinary Committee Media Council & Attorney General (Miscellaneous Cause No. 73 OF 2009) [2018] UGHCCD 30 (31 May 2018)
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.