TOPIC FIVE: DEFAMATION

1. Distinction between libel and slander

2. Interpretarion

3. Publication

4. Defences

(i) Justification

(ii) Fair Comment

(iii) Absolute privilege

(iv) Qualified Priviledge.

Cases:

1. John Yamo v. Achieng (1970) HCD 10

2. Leonard Sawe v. L.DS. Nyakyi (1976) LRT n. 21

3. Novati Joseph v. Sebaotian Muzo (1975) LRT n.

4. Navati Joseph v. Sebaotian Muzo (1978) LRT n. 14.

5. Salum Hassan v. Changarawe Manyori (1979) LRT. 2

6. P.M. Jonatha v. Athuman Khalifan (1980)

7. Naiman Maro v. Zablon (1980) TLR 39

8. E.S. Mangat v. B. Sharma (1968) HCD 167

9. Eston Mwaipopo v. Simithy Manyafu (1969) HCD 192.

10. Thankers v. Uganda Argus (1972) EA. 80

11. Shah v. Uganda Argus (1972) EA 80

12. Shah v. New Africa Press Ltd (1970) EA. 352

13. Herman v. Ndara (1971) HCD n. 93

14. Cosmas Faoustin (1971) HCD n. 349.

10. The contents of paragraph 9 of the Plaint are denied. It is denied that the articles denigrates the
reputation or lowers the esteem of the plaintiff in the eyes of the public. It is denied that the timing of
the articles demonstrates that the publication of both the
12. The contents of paragraph 10 do not merit a response, since the Plaintiff has not sought any specific
relief on this count. However, it is respectfully submitted that there is no absolute bar on reporting of
events or cases which are sub-judice and that the law permits fair comments to be made in relation to
such events and cases. The defendant being an IPR specialist, has only proffered his personal views on
the issue at hand, which amount to a fair comment in a matter of utmost public importance.

13. The contents of paragraph 11 of the Plaint are denied. It is denied that the defendant has published
any defamatory comments as alleged or at all.

17. The contents of paragraph 15 of the Plaint are denied and the Plaintiff put to
strict proof. The plaintiff has not been able to show how the comments and remarks
made on the Website have a deep impact on the reputation of the plaintiff, as
alleged or at all.
18.

21. The contents of paragraph 19 of the Plaint are mere repetition and are wholly denied. It is denied
that the articles have caused incalculable loss to the plaintiff or its business and the plaintiff is put to
strict proof thereof. As the defendant has only reported facts and expressed fair opinions on those facts,
it cannot amount to defamation and the Plaintiff is not entitled to either a restraining order or damages.

22. The contents of paragraph 20 of the Plaint are denied. It is denied that the Plaintiff has suffered any
damages what so ever. The Plaintiff‟s claim lacks even the barest of particulars to be reliable. The
Plaintiff has offered no basis for calculating damages and accordingly such unsubstantiated claim is liable
for out right rejection. The Plaintiff suit is an attempt to muzzle fair comments, a gross abuse of the
process of this Hon‟ble Cort and is liable to be dismissed.

26. The contents of paragraph 25 of the Plaint are vigorously denied. The Plaintiff is not entitled to
either an injunction or order for damages for reasons already set out in these pleadings.

PRAYER:
27. In the facts and circumstance of the present case, the defendant humbly prays
that this Hon‟ble Court:
a) Dismiss the present suit filed by the plaintiff;

b) Grant exemplary costs in favour of the Defendant and against the Plaintiff;

c) Hold that the baseless suit filed by the Plaintiff amounts to a frivolous and
vexatious one.
d) Pass any other order this Hon‟ble Court deems fit in the facts and circumstances
of the present case.