Wakilii

Tweheyo v Murungi (Civil Suit 24 of 2020)

High Court · [2023] UGHC 138 · 2023 Preliminary Objection Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Preliminary ruling on points of law raised by the defendant before trial
Decision
Preliminary objections dismissed; matter to proceed to trial

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 rejected preliminary objections to the competence of a defamation suit. The court held that the plaint adequately disclosed when the cause of action arose, placing the suit within the six-year limitation period. The court held that the defamatory words were sufficiently pleaded in the plaint and supported by annexures. The plaint disclosed an arguable cause of action in defamation. The court exercised discretion to extend time for service of the written statement of defence where the plaintiff had participated in scheduling directions without raising service objections.

Outcome

Preliminary objections dismissed; matter to proceed to trial

Facts

The plaintiff, an elected District Woman Councillor, sued the defendant for defamation arising from statements published over two radio stations in Kamwenge and Ibanda and in a letter dated 14 May 2020 addressed to the State House Anti-Corruption department and copied to various officials. The alleged defamatory statements accused the plaintiff of land grabbing 10,000 acres at Musaijamukuru hill, corruption, mismanagement, degrading the environment, causing a landslide resulting in two deaths, and intimidating citizens. The plaintiff filed suit on 26 June 2020 claiming general damages. Before trial commenced, the defendant raised preliminary objections challenging the competence of the plaint on grounds of limitation, failure to plead the defamatory words verbatim, and failure to disclose a cause of action. The plaintiff responded by challenging the competence of the defendant's written statement of defence for failure to serve within 15 days of endorsement.

Issues

  1. Whether the suit is barred by limitation under section 3(1) of the Limitation Act.
  2. Whether the plaint is fatally defective for failure to plead the actual defamatory words.
  3. Whether the plaint discloses a cause of action against the defendant.
  4. Whether the defendant's written statement of defence is incompetent for failure to serve it within 15 days of endorsement.

Orders

  • Both points of law raised by the defendant overruled.
  • Costs of the preliminary points awarded to the plaintiff in the cause.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Service of Written Statement of Defence — Failure to Serve Within 15 Days — Court's Discretion to Extend Time
Where a written statement of defence is not served within fifteen days from the date of endorsement by court, the court has discretion to extend the time within which to serve to ensure that the ends of justice are met, as neither the Civil Procedure Act nor the Civil Procedure Rules prescribe consequences for late service.
Civil Procedure — Objection to Service — Waiver by Conduct — Participation in Scheduling Without Objection
Where a plaintiff commits to generating a joint scheduling memorandum and participates in scheduling directions without objecting to non-service of the written statement of defence, the plaintiff is deemed to have had knowledge of the defence and cannot raise the service objection as an afterthought.
Civil Procedure — Limitation of Actions — Ascertainment of Limitation Period — Date When Cause of Action Arose
In determining whether an action is barred by limitation under section 3(1) of the Limitation Act, the court ascertains when the cause of action arose by reference to the time pleaded by the plaintiff in the plaint and the annexures thereto.
Tort Law — Defamation — Pleading Requirements — Particulars of Defamatory Words
In an action for defamation, the words complained of are the material facts on which the cause of action is based and must be set out in the particulars of claim. It is not sufficient to state the substance, purpose or effect of the words used; the actual words must be pleaded, though the claimant may plead the words and attach the full publication as an annexure.
Civil Procedure — Pleadings — Disclosure of Cause of Action — Elements Required
To establish a cause of action, a plaintiff must plead facts showing that they enjoyed a right protected by statute, common law or equity, that the right was violated, and that the defendant is responsible for the violation. At the preliminary stage, the court examines whether the plaint discloses an arguable case that invites a decision on the basis of the pleadings, without examining the merits.
Civil Procedure — Summary Dismissal — Test for Striking Out Plaint
No suit should be summarily dismissed unless it appears so hopeless that it plainly and obviously discloses no reasonable cause of action and is so weak as to be beyond redemption and incurable by amendment.

Legislation cited (3)

Cases cited (14)

  • Kizito v Red Pepper Publication (HCCS No. 624 of 2016)
  • Auto Garage v Motokov (1971) E.A 514
  • Tororo Cement Co. Ltd v Frokina International Ltd (Civil Appeal No. 21 of 2021)
  • Protection Security Services Ltd v Eastern Builders and Engineers Ltd (HCMA 511 of 2011)
  • Stop and See (U) Ltd v Tropical Africa Bank Ltd (Miscellaneous Application No. 333 of 2010)
  • DDSA Pharmaceuticals Ltd v Times Newspaper [1973] 1 QB 21 (CA)
  • S & K Holdings Ltd v Throgmorton Publications Ltd [1972] 1 WLR 1036
  • Dalgleish v Lowther (1899) 2 QB 590
  • Barham v Lord Huntingfield [1913] KB 193
  • Keogh Vs Incorporated Dental Hospital of Ireland [1910] 1r R 166
  • GladyNdukuNthuki Vs. Letshego Kenya & Anor, Kenya High Court Civil Suit No. 007 of 2021
  • Tororo Cement Co. Ltd v Frokina International Ltd (SCCA No. 2 of 2001)
  • Kebirungi v Road Trainers Ltd (HCB 72 of 2008)
  • Yaya Towers Limited v Trade Bank Limited (In Liquidation) (Civil Appeal No. 35 of 2000)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Tweheyo v Murungi (Civil Suit 24 of 2020) [2023] UGHC 138 (30 November 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.