Uganda Case Law

Ssembuusi v Attorney General of the Republic of Uganda

Ssembuusi v Attorney General of the Republic of Uganda (Reference No.16 of 2014) [2020] EACJ 17 (23 November 2020) (First Instance Division)

Court

East African Court of Justice

Case number

Reference No.16 of 2014

Judge

Mugenyi PJ, Ngiye J, Nyachae J

The Court held that it has jurisdiction to determine the Reference without requiring exhaustion of local remedies, as the Treaty does not impose such a requirement. However, the Court found that the challenge to the continued enforcement of criminal defamation laws (sections 179 and 180 of the Penal Code Act) was time-barred under Article 30(2) of the Treaty, as the Reference was filed long after the impugned provisions came into force and the Treaty does not recognize continuing violations. Regarding the applicant's conviction and sentence, the Court found no evidence that the decision of th…

Source excerpt

• Freedom Of Expression
• Criminal Defamation
• Access To Information
• Media Freedom

Media Council of Tanzania and Others v Attorney General of the United Republic of Tanzania

Media Council of Tanzania and Others v Attorney General of the United Republic of Tanzania (Reference 2 of 2017) [2019] EACJ 2 (28 March 2019) (First Instance Division)

Court

East African Court of Justice

Case number

Reference 2 of 2017

Judge

Mugenyi JA

The East African Court of Justice has exclusive jurisdiction to interpret and apply the Treaty for the Establishment of the East African Community, and there is no requirement for exhaustion of local remedies for references brought under Article 30. The impugned provisions of the Media Services Act, No.120 of 2016—specifically sections 7(3)(a), (b), (c), (f), (g), (h), (i), and (j); 19, 20, 21; 35-40; 50(1)(c)(i), 54; 52, 53; and 58, 59—are found to be vague, overbroad, and lacking sufficient clarity, thereby failing the three-part test of legality, legitimate aim, and proportionality. These…

Source excerpt

• Freedom Of Expression
• Press Regulation
• Criminal Defamation
• Prior Restraint
• Accreditation Of Journalists
• Sedition Laws

Media Legal Defence Initiative (MDLI) and Others v Sembuusi and Another (Application 4 of 2015)

Media Legal Defence Initiative (MDLI) and Others v Sembuusi and Another (Application 4 of 2015) [2017] EACJ 96 (20 September 2017) (First Instance Division)

Court

East African Court of Justice

Case number

Application 4 of 2015

Judge

Jundu JA, Lenaola JA, Mugenyi JA, Ngiye JA, Ntezilyayo JA

The Court found that while the affidavit in support of the application contained paragraphs (4–22) that did not disclose sources of information and thus were defective, these paragraphs merely described the applicants and did not affect the substance of the application. Applying established legal principles, the Court expunged the defective paragraphs but held the application was still properly before it. The applicants demonstrated sufficient interest in the outcome of Reference No. 16 of 2014, as their mandates and expertise directly relate to the issues of freedom of expression and crimina…

Source excerpt

• Amicus Curiae Admission
• Freedom Of Expression
• Criminal Defamation
• Affidavit Requirements
• Neutrality Of Amici

Media legal Defence Initiative and Ors. v Ssembuusi and Anor (Application 4 of 2015)

Media legal Defence Initiative and Ors. v Ssembuusi and Anor (Application 4 of 2015) [2016] EACJ 119 (28 June 2016) (First Instance Division)

Court

East African Court of Justice

Case number

Application 4 of 2015

Judge

Mugenyi JA

The East African Court of Justice allowed media and rights groups to join as amici curiae in a challenge to Uganda’s criminal defamation laws.

• Amicus Curiae
• Freedom Of Expression
• Criminal Defamation
• Press Freedom
• Amicus-curiae
• Freedom-of-expression

Mwenda and Another v Attorney General

Mwenda and Another v Attorney General [2010] UGCC 9 (25 August 2010)

Court

Constitutional Court of Uganda

Judge

Byamugisha, JA, Kavuma, JA, Mukasa-Kikonyogo, DCJ, Nshimye, JA, Engwau, JA

Sections 39 and 40 of the Penal Code Act, which criminalize sedition, are inconsistent with Articles 29(1)(a) and 43(2)(c) of the Constitution because they impose vague, overly broad, and unjustifiable limitations on the right to freedom of expression. The respondent failed to prove that these limitations are acceptable and demonstrably justifiable in a free and democratic society. The provisions catch a wide range of speech, including legitimate criticism of government and leaders, and create uncertainty about the boundaries of lawful expression, thereby infringing constitutional rights. The…

Source excerpt

• Freedom Of Expression
• Sedition
• Limitations On Rights
• Sectarianism
• Constitutional Review
• Criminal Defamation

Mohamed v Rex

Mohamed v Rex (Criminal Appeal No. 512 of 1949) [1950] EACA 98 (1 January 1950)

Court

East African Court of Appeal

Case number

Criminal Appeal No. 512 of 1949

Judge

Modera J, Nihill, C.J

The East African Court of Appeal quashed a criminal libel conviction, holding that intent to defame was not properly found and that lack of bona fides was not the same thing.

• Criminal Defamation
• Libel Elements
• Intent To Defame
• Privilege In Defamation
• Definition Of Person
• Criminal-defamation