Court of Appeal has directed Daily Monitor newspaper to pay Shs450 million to Pius Bigirimana as compensatory damages for defamation.
Bigirimana, who is the current Permanent Secretary to the Judiciary sued the newspaper over defamatory stories published about him between 2012 and 2015 at a time he served as Permanent Secretary to the Office of the Prime Minister.
The judgment delivered on January 5, 2023 by Deputy Registrar comes following an appeal by Daily Monitor challenging the judgement of the High Court Judge Musa Ssekana which he delivered on December 10, 2021.
Judge Ssekana awarded costs to Bigirimana worth Shs450 million in a lawsuit where the PS demanded Shs1 billion of general damages for defamation and a permanent injunction restraining the newspaper and or their agents, editors, publishers, from making, publishing, circulating any further defamatory stories against or about him. He also sought an order compelling the newspaper proprietors to publish an apology in the newspapers.
Court of Appeal agreed with Judge Ssekana that the right to reputation is acknowledged as an inherent personal right of every person.
Court of Appeal’s Judge, 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 Shs 350,000,000/= 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 Shs100,000,000 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 the aside. I would also dismiss the appeal with ¾ of the total of the 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.
