|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
Two Justices of the Appellate Court have directed the Daily Monitor newspaper to pay Pius Bigirimana, a total sum of UGX450 million as compensatory damages for defaming him in a series of articles published on several dates between 2012 and 2015.
Bigirimana at the time served as the Permanent Secretary to the Office of the Prime Minister before he was transferred to Gender Ministry in the same capacity.
Currently, he is the Permanent Secretary to the Judiciary.
The judgment delivered on Thursday, 5th January 2023, by the court’s Deputy Registrar followed an appeal by Daily Monitor, challenging the judgement of the High Court’s Judge, Musa Ssekana delivered on December 10, 2021.
Sekana awarded costs to Bigirimana worth UGX450 million in a lawsuit where the PS demanded UGX1 billion of general damages to defamation and exemplary damages of UGX900 million.
In addition, Bigirimana had sought an order compelling the defendants to publish an apology in the said newspapers and online news channels and a permanent injunction restraining the defendants and their agents, editors and publishers from making, publishing and circulating any further defamatory stories about him.
According to Mr. Bigirimana, between the years 2012 and 2015, numerous malicious, spiteful, untrue and defamatory publications were made against him in the Daily Monitor, Saturday Monitor and Sunday Monitor, which were injurious to his reputation.
Some of them include ‘Auditors target Bigirimana in cash probe; a publication of 14th October 2012’, ‘MPs order Government to remove Bigirimana; a publication of 2nd November 2012’; ’Bigirimana contradicts himself on purchase of Ministers’ cars; a publication of 30th November 2012’, ‘Bigirimana’s wife acquires UGX250 million Mercedes Benz’, and ‘Corruption Ledger; a publication of 10th March 2013’ among very many other publications within the said time frame.
The Court of Appeal agreed with Judge Sekana that the right to reputation is acknowledged as an inherent personal right of every person.
“A man’s reputation is his property and perhaps more valuable than any other property. Indeed, if we reflect on the degree of suffering occasioned by a loss of character and compare it with that occasioned by the loss of property, the amount of injury by defamation far exceeds that loss of property,” Mr Sekana ruled in 2021.
In the lead judgement, Court of Appeal Lady Justice Elizabeth Musoke ruled that the statements by Daily Monitor are deemed to be bonafide until a Court finds them to be defamatory.
“The claim, in that case, concerned one defamatory publication while the present case concerns 15 different defamatory publications, published over a space of 3 years. The sum of UGX350,000,000/= was therefore adequate and I would maintain it. I would not enhance the amount awarded as in my view, the sum is substantial enough to vindicate the respondent’s damaged reputation. I would also not interfere with the award of UGX. 100,000,000/=, exemplary damages,” she said.
“In conclusion, all grounds of appeal having failed, I would dismiss the appeal and uphold the judgment and orders of the learned trial Judge save the order for the 1st defendant in appellant to publish an apology to the respondent, which is set cross-appeal. I would award them aside. I would also dismiss the appeal with ¾ of the total of costs of the appeal, less the costs of the cross-appeal. Since only Gashirabake, JA agrees, the Court, by majority decision (Kibeedi, JA dissenting in part), dismisses the appeal, but modifies one of the orders made by the learned trial Judge in the manner stated in this judgment,” she ruled.