Uganda v Hassan Abdi Hussein (Criminal Appeal No. 9 of 1990)
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 Supreme Court considered whether "publishes" in section 51 of the Penal Code Act (defamation of a foreign dignitary) covers spoken words. Agreeing with the High Court, it held that "publishes" refers only to written or printed matter capable of being read, not slander, so particulars alleging defamation "by asking him questions" disclosed no offence under section 51. The Court held that the High Court should have struck out the charge rather than ruling "no case to answer", and varied the order accordingly; the order was not an acquittal. The ground that the Director of Public Prosecutions was not heard failed, as he was served but failed to appear. Appeal allowed in part, with the prosecution at liberty to amend the charge.
Outcome
Appeal allowed in part; the High Court's "no case to answer" order set aside and varied to a striking out of the section 51 charge, with the prosecution at liberty to amend or substitute the charge.
Facts
The respondent was charged before a Magistrate Grade 1 under section 51 of the Penal Code Act (defamation of a foreign dignitary). The particulars alleged that, at State House Entebbe in January 1990, he published defamatory matter against the President of Zambia, Dr. Kenneth Kaunda, "by asking him questions" intended to disturb peace and friendship between Uganda and Zambia. The respondent contended that the conduct alleged was spoken, whereas section 51 required written or printed publication (libel). The Magistrate held the charge sufficiently particularised and refused to strike it out. On revision, the High Court held the particulars insufficient because section 51 referred to libel, not slander, and ruled that the respondent had "no case to answer". The State appealed to the Supreme Court.
Issues
- Whether the word "publishes" in section 51 of the Penal Code Act extends to spoken words (slander) or is confined to written or printed matter capable of being read (libel).
- Whether particulars alleging defamation of a foreign dignitary "by asking him questions" disclosed an offence under section 51 of the Penal Code Act.
- Whether the High Court erred in making a revisional order without first hearing the Director of Public Prosecutions as required by section 342(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code Act.
- Whether the High Court's order that the respondent had "no case to answer" amounted to an acquittal so as to oust the Supreme Court's jurisdiction on a second appeal.
Orders
- Appeal allowed in part.
- The order of the High Court set aside insofar as it related to "no case to answer".
- The High Court order varied so that the charge under section 51 of the Penal Code Act is struck out for failing to disclose an offence.
- The prosecution is at liberty, if it wishes to proceed against the respondent, to amend the charge or to substitute or add a new charge.
Rules and key headnotes
Legislation cited (11)
Full judgment
The original judgment as reported. Read the original PDF before relying on any passage.