The Supreme Court held that Monitor Publications failed to prove justification for a libel alleging theft and conspiracy, and dismissed the appeal with costs.
Editor in Chief & Printing, Publishing Company New Vision v Sekandi & Anor (Civil Appeal No. 33 of 2011) [2013] UGHCCD 16 (1 February 2013)
Court
HC: Civil Division (Uganda)
Case number
Civil Appeal No. 33 of 2011
The High Court found that the substance of the published article was true: the respondents had been arrested and detained on suspicion of stealing a cow, and this was accurately reported. The subsequent investigation, which established the cow belonged to one respondent, was not part of the story at the time of publication. The timing of the article, though after the respondents' release, did not alter the truth of the events as reported. The trial magistrate erred in focusing on the timing and malice, rather than the substantial truth of the publication. Since justification (truth) was estab…
Chaina Movat & Anor v Kyarimpa (Civil Appeal No. 42 of 2008) [2012] UGHC 28 (23 February 2012)
Court
High Court of Uganda
Case number
Civil Appeal No. 42 of 2008
Judge
Kwesiga, J
The High Court partly allowed a defamation appeal, setting aside liability for the first appellant but upholding damages and costs against the radio station.
Nagenda v The Editor of the Monitor & Another (Civil Appeal 5 of 1994) [1994] UGSC 33 (6 December 1994)
Court
Supreme Court of Uganda
Case number
Civil Appeal 5 of 1994
Judge
Manyindo, DCJ, Odoki, JSC, Tsekooko, JSC
The Supreme Court of Uganda dismissed a libel appeal, holding that justification was available because the issue was canvassed at trial and the evidence supported truth.