Wakilii

Tusabe v Asasira (HCT-01-CV-CS 21 of 2017)

High Court · [2023] UGHCCD 201 · 2023 Judgment for Plaintiff AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
First instance civil suit for defamation (slander)
Decision
Suit succeeded; plaintiff awarded damages and permanent injunction

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 High Court held that the defendant made defamatory statements accusing the plaintiff of misappropriating SACCO funds, which statements were actionable per se as they imputed criminal conduct. The court awarded general damages of UGX 20,000,000 and granted a permanent injunction restraining the defendant from further defaming the plaintiff. Punitive damages were declined as the defendant's conduct was not shown to be high-handed.

Outcome

Suit succeeded; plaintiff awarded damages and permanent injunction

Facts

The plaintiff was patron of Nyekundire Savings and Credit Cooperative Organization (SACCO) in Kasenda Sub County, Kabarole district. The defendant served as SACCO secretary. The plaintiff alleged that the defendant made slanderous statements at a SACCO meeting chaired by the Deputy Resident District Commissioner, at the offices of Kabarole Research and Resource Centre, during her 2015 election campaign, and to a New Vision newspaper correspondent. The statements accused the plaintiff of stealing UGX 5,000,000 from the SACCO and failing to repay it, thereby causing the SACCO's closure. The plaintiff testified he had contributed to the SACCO's formation, provided premises, paid its debts, and was a person of good reputation. The defendant denied making the statements. The court found the plaintiff's evidence more credible, noting that the Deputy RDC confirmed hearing the statements at the meeting and that the statements appeared in a New Vision article of 18 May 2016.

Issues

  1. Whether the defendant made utterances that were defamatory to the plaintiff.
  2. What remedies are available to the parties?

Orders

  • The plaintiff is awarded general damages in the sum of UGX 20,000,000 against the defendant.
  • A permanent injunction is issued against the defendant restraining her from defaming the plaintiff.
  • Costs of the suit are awarded to the plaintiff.

Rules and key headnotes

Defamation — Slander — Definition and Test
Defamation is the publication of a statement that tends to lower a person's reputation in the minds of right-thinking members of society or tends to make them shun and avoid him. The test for evaluating whether a statement is defamatory is that of a reasonable person, being a layperson who may be guilty of loose thinking and may not reflect fully upon the statement.
Defamation — Slander — Elements of Claim
For a claim in slander, the plaintiff must plead that: (a) the defendant made a false and defamatory statement concerning the plaintiff, (b) the defendant made an unprivileged publication of that statement to a third party, and (c) except where the slander is actionable per se, the plaintiff must plead and prove damage. The actual words complained of must be set forth verbatim in the plaint and the persons to whom publication was made must be mentioned.
Defamation — Slander Per Se — Categories
Statements that constitute slander per se include: (i) imputing to another a criminal offense; (ii) imputing to another a presently existing venereal disease or other loathsome and communicable disease; (iii) imputing to another conduct, characteristics or a condition incompatible with the proper exercise of his lawful business, trade, profession, office or good standing in society. In slander per se, damages may be awarded without proof of actual damages, as injury is presumed.
Defamation — General Damages — Assessment
General damages in defamation are presumed once defamatory words are proved and need not be proved by evidence. The quantum is determined by considering: (i) the gravity of the allegation, (ii) the size and influence of circulation, (iii) the effect of publication, (iv) the extent and nature of the claimant's reputation, and (v) the behaviour of defendant and plaintiff. It is necessary to combine the plaintiff's status with the seriousness of the allegations made.
Defamation — Punitive Damages — Conditions for Award
Punitive or exemplary damages in defamation are intended to punish the defendant and act as a deterrent. They are completely outside the field of compensation and will not be awarded unless the plaintiff shows that the defendant's conduct was high-handed.

Legislation cited (3)

Cases cited (10)

  • Lancaster v Blackwell Colliery Co Ltd (1982) WC Rep 345
  • Sebuliba v Cooperative Bank Ltd (1982) HCB 130
  • A.K. Oils & Fats (U) Ltd v Bidco Uganda Ltd (HCCS No. 715 of 2005)
  • Rutare S Leonidas v Rudakubana Augustine & Kagame Eric William [1978] HCB 243
  • Ssejjoba Geoffrey v Rev Rwabigonji Patrick [1977] HCB 37
  • Khasakhala v Aurali and Others [1995-98] 1 EA 112
  • Kanabi v Chief Editor Ngabo Newspaper and others
  • David Kachontori Bashakara v Kirunda Mubarak (HCCS No. 62 of 2009)
  • Rookes v Barnard & Others [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.

Tusabe v Asasira (HCT-01-CV-CS 21 of 2017) [2023] UGHCCD 201 (28 April 2023)
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.