[2008] UGHC 136

[2008] UGHC 136

The court found that the second defendant, as News Editor of Mega F.M., edited and broadcast words that were false and defamatory of the plaintiffs, imputing criminal conduct and causing reputational harm. The evidence of the plaintiffs was uncontroverted, as the defendants failed to appear or adduce any evidence....

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2008] UGHC 136
Parties
Plaintiff: David Opwonya; Plaintiff: Andrew Ajure; Defendant: Attorney General; Defendant: The News Editor Mega F. M. Gulu
Court
High Court of Uganda
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Number
Civil Suit No.10 of 2007
Procedural Posture
Civil Suit / Judgment
Outcome
Judgment for the plaintiffs against the second defendant; suit against the first defendant dismissed.
Legal Topics
Defamation, Libel, Media Law, Damages, Limitation Periods
Source Language
en
Tort Law Defamation Libel Media Law Damages Limitation Periods

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

David Opwonya

Plaintiff

Andrew Ajure

Plaintiff

Attorney General

Defendant

The News Editor Mega F. M. Gulu

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Suit / Judgment

  1. 1 Whether the second defendant broadcast the words complained of touching the plaintiffs.
  2. 2 Whether the words complained of were defamatory of the plaintiffs.
  3. 3 Whether the defences of justification and fair comment are available to the defendants.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the second defendant, as News Editor of Mega F.M., edited and broadcast words that were false and defamatory of the plaintiffs, imputing criminal conduct and causing reputational harm. The evidence of the plaintiffs was uncontroverted, as the defendants failed to appear or adduce any evidence. The court held that the words were not based on any council discussion or official record, and thus the defences of justification and fair comment were not available. The Attorney General (first defendant) was found not liable, as there was no evidence linking him to the publication. The suit was filed within the statutory limitation period. The plaintiffs were entitled to...

Court Disposition

Judgment for the plaintiffs against the second defendant; suit against the first defendant dismissed.

Orders

  • The second defendant shall pay the first plaintiff UGX 7,000,000 as general damages.
  • The second defendant shall pay the second plaintiff UGX 5,000,000 as general damages.