Search judgments by proposition, citation, court, judge or legal topic, then move directly into the source-grounded case analysis.
Results update automatically as you type.
Uganda decisions
Decisions matching the current search
Matovu Cranmer Musoke and Another v Kibuuka Ekoyasi Ngabompya and Another (Civil Suit No 243 of 2022) [2025] UGHCCD 98 (8 July 2025)
The High Court found the defendants liable for defamation over rape accusations and social media publication, awarding damages, special costs, interest, injunction, and costs.
Amondoi v Oryon (Civil Appeal 57 of 2023) [2024] UGHC 797 (27 August 2024)
The High Court dismissed a defamation appeal, holding the plaint failed to plead the actual defamatory words verbatim and so disclosed no cause of action.
Okwenda v Woodson (Civil Suit 55 of 2019) [2023] UGHCCD 188 (30 June 2023)
The High Court dismissed the plaintiff’s defamation claim but upheld the defendant’s counterclaim, granting an injunction, UGX 20 million in damages, and costs.
Tusabe v Asasira (HCT-01-CV-CS 21 of 2017) [2023] UGHCCD 201 (28 April 2023)
The High Court at Fort Portal found the defendant liable for slander, awarding UGX 20 million in general damages and a permanent injunction.
Amanyire v Nyabongo (Civil Appeal No. 22 of 2021) [2022] UGHCCD 208 (20 October 2022)
The High Court allowed a defamation appeal, holding that a newspaper article could not prove the alleged radio slander and that the plaintiff failed to discharge the burden of proof.
Namayilira Ronald v NBS Television Limited (Civil Suit No. 587 of 2017) [2021] UGHCCD 70 (7 July 2021)
The High Court held that a TV broadcast showing the plaintiff’s image in a story about murder suspects was not defamatory because it referred to another person and caused no proven reputational harm.
New Vision Printing and Publishing Company Limited v Opika Opoka (Civil Appeal No. 21 of 2013) [2021] UGCA 88 (18 March 2021)
The Court of Appeal held that a newspaper article referred to Opika Opoka and was defamatory, but reduced general damages from UGX 75 million to UGX 45 million.
Angwee v Odongo & Anor (CIVIL SUIT No. 0065 OF 2011) [2018] UGHCCD 81 (13 December 2018)
The High Court held that a public accusation of theft made against the plaintiff was defamatory slander, rejected qualified privilege, and awarded UGX 10 million.
Otto v The Attorney General & Ors (CIVIL SUIT No. 0014 OF 2010) [2016] UGHCCD 119 (1 December 2016)
The High Court held the plaint disclosed a cause of action, but dismissed the suit against the second and fourth defendants as time-barred.
Maisha v Madraa (Civil Appeal No. 0031 of 2012) [2016] UGHCCD 66 (13 October 2016)
The High Court found that the trial magistrate correctly evaluated the evidence and applied the law on defamation. The words uttered by the appellant directly referred to the respondent and imputed the criminal offence of witchcraft, which is actionable per se under Ugandan law. The evidence established that the defamatory statements were published to third parties, as several neighbours heard the utterances. The appellant failed to rebut the presumption of publication and malice. In cases of slander imputing criminal conduct, damages are presumed and need not be specifically proved. The tria…
Source excerpt
