Uganda High Court: The plaintiff, a senior officer of the Uganda Revenue Authority (URA), instituted the present suit seeking redress for alleged libel arising from messages published by the defendant on the URA Senior Management WhatsApp forum. Isaac Bonny Teko, J., stated that the malice in defamation does not always mean personal hatred. It may be inferred from recklessness, failure to verify, sensationalism, or use of the privileged occasion for an improper purpose. In the present case, the defendant had access to investigative resources. He knew the matter was not confirmed, and nevertheless published a dramatic narrative involving criminality, violence and sexual impropriety.
Accordingly, the Court declared that the impugned publications were defamatory and directed the defendant to issue a written apology of equal prominence on the same Senior Management WhatsApp forum or by equivalent communication.
Background
The plaintiff contended that the defendant published false, sensational and defamatory statements portraying him as a criminal wanted by police, a reckless gunman, a violent aggressor and an immoral individual. It was alleged that the publications gravely injured his reputation before his superiors, peers and the wider URA management community.
The defendant denied liability, asserting that the information had been received from a police officer attached to the Staff Compliance Division, that the messages were shared in good faith on an occasion of qualified privilege, that investigations were ongoing, and that there was no malice or intent to defame.
Analysis, Law, and Decision
1. Whether the Publications Were Defamatory
The Court noted that there was no dispute that the defendant published the messages on the Senior Management WhatsApp forum and that the messages clearly referred to the plaintiff by name. The first message conveyed that the plaintiff was wanted by police for shooting at victims, which amounted to a serious imputation of criminality. The second message went further by circulating a narrative suggesting that the plaintiff pursued and shot at another person over a woman, introducing moral and sexual innuendo. It portrayed the plaintiff, a married man and public officer, as immoral, reckless, violent and unfit for trust.
The Court held that taken in their natural and ordinary meaning, the publications would lower the plaintiff in the estimation of right-thinking members of society, particularly in a professional setting where integrity and discipline are essential.
The Court stated that a person who republishes defamatory allegations cannot escape liability merely by saying that the matter is alleged, especially where the allegation is grave, the audience influential, and the publisher has means of verification. The question is whether the overall communication lowered the plaintiff’s reputation, and in the present case, the Court found that it did.
2. Qualified Privilege and Malice
The Court accepted that the defendant, as Assistant Commissioner in charge of staff compliance, had a legitimate duty to communicate serious allegations to URA senior management and that the recipients had a corresponding interest in receiving such information. The occasion was therefore capable of attracting qualified privilege.
However, the Court stated that the plaintiff proved malice in legal sense sufficient to defeat qualified privilege. The Court stated that the malice in defamation does not always mean personal hatred. It may be inferred from recklessness, failure to verify, sensationalism, or use of the privileged occasion for an improper purpose. In the present case, the defendant had access to investigative resources. He knew the matter was not confirmed, and nevertheless published a dramatic narrative involving criminality, violence and sexual impropriety.
The courts stated that despite being provided with the plaintiff’s contact details and being requested to verify the information, the defendant failed to do so and did not issue any correction or apology. Thus, the defendant’s conduct demonstrated reckless indifference to the plaintiff’s reputation, sufficient to defeat qualified privilege.
Accordingly, the Court declared that the impugned publications were defamatory and directed the defendant to issue a written apology of equal prominence on the same Senior Management WhatsApp forum or by equivalent communication. The Court further awarded UGX 70,000,000 as general damages, and UGX 30,000,000 as punitive/exemplary damages. The Court also granted a permanent injunction restraining further publication of the same or substantially similar defamatory material.
[Nicholas Jjengo v. James Abola, Civil Suit No. 0030 of 2023, decided on 17-6-2026]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Plaintiff: Counsel from Astral Advocates;
For the Defendant: Counsel from Amber Solicitors & Advocates, formerly Kenneth Akampurira Advocates & Solicitors.
