Uganda Case Law

Ocatre v Ezati and Another

Ocatre v Ezati and Another (Civil Suit 4 of 2022) [2024] UGHC 613 (10 July 2024)

Court

High Court of Uganda

Case number

Civil Suit 4 of 2022

Judge

Acellam, J

The court found that the statements made by the defendants to the police regarding alleged death threats were made in the context of reporting a crime and are protected by absolute privilege. There was no evidence of malice or spite in the defendants' actions, as the first defendant acted out of genuine concern for his safety. The law recognizes the necessity for individuals to report crimes without fear of defamation suits, and such statements to police are not actionable unless made with malice. The plaintiff failed to prove that the statements were defamatory or made with malice, and thus…

Source excerpt

• Defamation
• Qualified Privilege
• Malicious Prosecution
• Burden Of Proof
• Damages
• Freedom Of Expression

Pastor Walugembe v Segawa

Pastor Walugembe v Segawa (Civil Suit 653 of 2016) [2024] UGHCCD 97 (10 June 2024)

Court

HC: Civil Division (Uganda)

Case number

Civil Suit 653 of 2016

Judge

Boniface Wamala, J

The court found that the Defendant's letter to the Chief Justice contained statements that were defamatory of the Plaintiff, a public figure, and that the publication was made to multiple parties beyond the Chief Justice. The Plaintiff proved that the statements injured his reputation, leading to ridicule and loss of church members. The Defendant failed to establish the defence of qualified privilege, as the communication was made unilaterally and not in good faith, evidenced by the disowning of the letter by the association he claimed to represent. The Plaintiff was entitled to a declaration…

Source excerpt

• Defamation
• Libel
• Qualified Privilege
• General Damages
• Injunction
• Burden Of Proof

Katusiime & Another v The Editor in Chief of The East African Newspaper & Another

Katusiime & Another v The Editor in Chief of The East African Newspaper & Another (CIVIL SUIT NO. 369 OF 2002) [2020] UGHCCD 176 (10 June 2020)

Court

HC: Civil Division (Uganda)

Case number

CIVIL SUIT NO. 369 OF 2002

Judge

Mugambe, J

The High Court dismissed a libel suit over a newspaper article on Uganda’s voter register project, finding the publication truthful, fair, and protected by privilege.

• Defamation
• Libel
• Qualified Privilege
• Fair Comment
• Malice
• Reputation

Okello v Odongo

Okello v Odongo (Civil Suit No. 67 of 2017) [2020] UGHC 139 (8 June 2020)

Court

High Court of Uganda

Case number

Civil Suit No. 67 of 2017

Judge

Stephen Mubiru, J

The High Court found that letters written about the plaintiff were defamatory, published to third parties, and sent with express malice. General damages and an injunction were granted.

• Defamation
• Libel
• Qualified Privilege
• Malice
• Damages
• Injunction

Wasswa Matovu v Baryamureeba & 7 Others

Wasswa Matovu v Baryamureeba & 7 Others (CIVIL SUIT NO. 391 of 2012 CONSOLIDATED WITH CIVIL SUITS NOS. 36/2013, 387/2012 AND 390/2012) [2020] UGHCCD 104 (18 May 2020)

Court

HC: Civil Division (Uganda)

Case number

CIVIL SUIT NO. 391 of 2012 CONSOLIDATED WITH CIVIL SUITS NOS. 36/2013, 387/2012 AND 390/2012

Judge

Musa Ssekaana, J

The court found that the suit against Makerere University was time barred, as it was filed more than two years after the publication of the allegedly defamatory statements, and there was no valid plea of disability or exemption. Regarding the alleged defamation, the court held that while the statements made by the 1st, 3rd, and 4th defendants may have appeared defamatory, they were either true, fair comment, or protected by qualified privilege, as they were based on official suspension letters and public interest reporting. The statements regarding mental illness, even if false, were not defa…

Source excerpt

• Defamation
• Libel
• Qualified Privilege
• Limitation Periods
• Vicarious Liability

Atiku v The Editor-in-Chief of The Red Pepper Publications & 2 Others

Atiku v The Editor-in-Chief of The Red Pepper Publications & 2 Others (CIVIL SUIT NO. 28 OF 2014) [2020] UGHCCD 28 (26 March 2020)

Court

HC: Civil Division (Uganda)

Case number

CIVIL SUIT NO. 28 OF 2014

Judge

Musa Ssekaana, J

High Court defamation suit over newspaper and online publications about human trafficking. Court found the articles defamatory but applied qualified privilege and awarded general damages.

• Defamation
• Libel
• Damages For Defamation
• Qualified Privilege
• Injunctions
• Reputation Injury

Owor v Sreekanths & Another

Owor v Sreekanths & Another (Civil Suit No. 3 of 2012) [2020] UGHC 28 (24 March 2020)

Court

High Court of Uganda

Case number

Civil Suit No. 3 of 2012

Judge

Gadenya, J

The High Court dismissed a defamation suit over a dismissal letter, holding the allegations of gross negligence were true and the communication was privileged.

• Defamation
• Qualified Privilege
• Truth Defence
• Employment Dismissal
• Gross Negligence
• Qualified-privilege

Okot-Bwangamoi v Amitayo OKeny & 5 Others

Okot-Bwangamoi v Amitayo OKeny & 5 Others (Civil Suit No. 64 of 2011) [2019] UGHC 75 (27 November 2019)

Court

High Court of Uganda

Case number

Civil Suit No. 64 of 2011

Judge

Stephen Mubiru, J

The High Court held that alleged libel over a land dispute was true in substance and protected by qualified privilege, so the suit was dismissed.

• Defamation
• Libel
• Qualified Privilege
• Abatement Of Suit
• Malice
• Land Dispute

Ejidra v New Vision Printing and Publsihing Company Limited & Another

Ejidra v New Vision Printing and Publsihing Company Limited & Another (CIVIL SUIT NO. 217 OF 2013) [2019] UGHCCD 263 (17 May 2019)

Court

HC: Civil Division (Uganda)

Case number

CIVIL SUIT NO. 217 OF 2013

Judge

Mugambe, J

The court found that the article in question was an accurate, unbiased, and fair report of a community dispute regarding land grabbing, an issue of significant public interest. The publication was not malicious or defamatory, as it merely reported accusations made at a public meeting and did not sensationalize or misrepresent the facts. The Defendants, as a national newspaper and its editor, had a duty to inform the public about such matters, and the public had a corresponding interest in receiving this information. The publication was therefore protected by qualified privilege. The court als…

Source excerpt

• Defamation
• Qualified Privilege
• Justification
• Fair Comment
• Damages
• Media Law

Okot Vs Laker

Okot Vs Laker (CIVIL APPEAL No. 078 OF 2016) [2019] UGHCCD 160 (16 May 2019)

Court

HC: Civil Division (Uganda)

Case number

CIVIL APPEAL No. 078 OF 2016

Judge

Stephen Mubiru, J

High Court of Uganda appeal in a libel case: the court upheld defamation liability, found qualified privilege unavailable as pleaded, and reduced damages.

• Defamation
• Libel
• Qualified Privilege
• Actual Malice
• Assessment Of Damages
• Qualified-privilege