Matovu Cranmer Musoke and Another v Kibuuka Ekoyasi Ngabompya and Another (Civil Suit No 243 of 2022) [2025] UGHCCD 98 (8 July 2025)

## **THE REPUBLIC OF UGANDA**

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF UGANDA AT KAMPALA**

### **(CIVIL DIVISION)**

#### **CIVIL SUIT NO 243 OF 2022**

# **1. MATOVU CRANMER MUSOKE::::::::::::::::::::::::::: 1st PLAINTIFF**

## **2. KATENDE ISMAIL::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: 2nd PLAINTIFF**

## **VERSUS**

**1. KIBUUKA EKOYASI NGABOMPYA::::::::::::::::::::::1st DEFENDANT 2. NAKANWAGI BETTY:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::2nd DEFENDANT BEFORE THE HON JUSTICE BONNY ISAAC TEKO**

#### **JUDGMENT**

## **Introduction and Background**

The plaintiffs brought this suit against the defendants for an order of compensation for defamation, payment of general, aggravated, special and punitive damages for publication of defamatory statements at police and in the social media, a permanent injunction against the defendants restraining them from further publications of defamatory statements against the plaintiffs, interest and costs of the suit.

The defendants did not file their Written Statement of Defense despite proper service through the court process server and by advertising the

pg. 1 08- July 2025

court summons in the newspaper. The defendants never attended court and the matter proceeded *exparte*.

# **Representation**

The plaintiffs were represented by **Mukiibi & Kyeyune Advocates.**

There was no appearance by the defendants hence no representation.

## **Issues for Determination**

Two issues were framed for determination. These were;

**1) Whether the statements of the defendants are defamatory of the plaintiffs; If so, whether the statements complained of were published by the defendants?**

# **2) What remedies are available to the parties?**

# **Submissions**

The Plaintiff's Counsel submitted that the burden and standard of proof in civil proceedings lies upon the plaintiff. Section 101(1) & (2) of the Evidence Act, Cap. 8, Laws of Uganda provides as follows:

*(l) whoever desires any court to give judgment as to any legal right or liability dependent on the existence of facts which or she asserts to prove that those facts exist.*

*(2) When a person is bound to prove the existence of any fact, it is said that the burden of proof lies on that person.*

pg. 2 08- July 2025

In the case of **Okech Wilson vs. Odong Balam (Civil Appeal 2014/10 [2015] I|GHLD 4 (13th March, 2015)** Justice Margret Mutonyi stated:

*In civil proceedings, the standard of proof is on a mere balance of probabilities save for matters whose cause of action is premised on fraud where the standard of proof is slightly above the balance of probabilities but still not beyond reasonable doubt.*

Counsel submitted that the plaintiffs have discharged the burden and standard of proof required under the law in this matter. The plaintiffs relied on evidence of three witnesses to wit; *PW1, Matovu Cranmer, PW2 Katende Ismael and PW3 DC Juma A. Ondego.* The Plaintiffs also exhibited in this court several documents in support of their case.

Counsel submitted that in his evidence in chief, PW1 Matovu Cranmer testified that on the 21st day of April,2021, the defendant lodged a complaint vide **Kakiri CRB: 167/2021** and made false accusations of a serious and despicable crime against him at Kakiri Police Station asserting that he raped his own daughter, the 2nd defendant herein and a result of which she became pregnant.

PW1 further testified that on the same day, the 1st defendant made a statement and published or caused the following defamatory words to be printed and published in the English language against him;

*" …I wish to state that Nakanwagi Betty is my biological daughter who was born in 2002 and she is 18 years old and studying at Multitech Business School and she commutes from home. It was during the month of March 2021 when I started seeing Nakanwagi's breasts had enlarged, every week and sleeping every time and her stomach was becoming big more so when*

*she had eaten food and I told her mother Nankusu Norah that I suspect Betty to be pregnant and ordered her to talk and ask her then, later my wife told me that upon asking Betty she told her that she was even in her menstruation periods, but I told my wife to talk to her again ...... I came back she told me that she had taken Betty to a clinic and she was diagnosed, tested and found that she was pregnant and when she asked Betty who had impregnated her she refused to reveal saying that she was raped by an unknown man. Then yesterday 20/04/21 during morning hours while I was going. for my work and Betty requested to talk to me, so I sat down and she told me that she was raped during the month of December,2020 by my step brother Matovu and she narrated that she was from school and found his uncle Matovu at Kagala in a Pajero vehicle which was parked alongside the road and had by passed them because she had not seen him and Matovu called her and she knelt down to greet him but Matovu told her to come nearer him and she moved near the vehicle and knelt to greet and while still kneeling a certain man who was with Matovu grabbed her hand and forced her to enter their vehicle and then Matovu came to her and forced her into sex and warned her not to tell anyone as he promised to danger her life if she reveals it. She also feared to tell us and today 2I/04/2021, I took her to a certain clinic in Namungona to prove whether she was pregnant and I took her scan and I was told that the pregnancy is 20 weeks and I came to police to report the case. The statement recorded from me is true and correct."*

Counsel further submitted that PW2 informed court that the 1st defendant in conspiracy with the 2nd defendant further facilitated the false allegations by actuating the whole process when she made a statement at

police dated 21st April, 2021 emphasizing the purported allegation when she could at this time have told the police the truth that *the 1st plaintiff did not commit such a heinous crime against her and her pregnancy had nothing to do with him.*

PW1 further informed court that the 2nd defendant made a statement which was printed and published or caused to be printed and published in the English language, the following words which were defamatory of the plaintiffs;"...*it was during the month of December 2020 at around l7:30 hrs while I was from Mulitech Business School footing back home in Serinya and on my way at Kagala. I by passed a certain motor vehicle which was parked alongside the road and a certain man was standing outside near the vehicle* and *as I by passed someone called my name that Nakanwagi, at your home you were told not to greet people? I looked behind and I saw my uncle Matotu seated on the driver's seat so I knelt down to greet but he told me to extend near as he complained as to why I was greeting...where he was and knelt down.... and I saw the other man grabbing my one hand and as I tried to remove may hand he grabbed the second and pulled me inside their vehicle and I leaned on the seats, then uncle Matovu opened the driver's door and came to me and said Betty I have to play sex with him and I responded that yet you're my uncle and he said that If don't do so he will take me somewhere and my parents will never see me again and he was saying this when the other man is seated on the driver's seat. He then told the man to start the vehicle and the man started the vehicle, then I accepted to play sex with him without using a condom, then he removed my knickers away and he also unzipped and removed his penis which is not circumcised and inserted into my vagina and fucked me for one round without using a*

*condom and warned me not to tell my parents and further he pushed me out of the vehicle and the other man drove away. I felt a lot of pain, I didn't tell anyone. Then on the 19th day of April, 2021, my mother Nankusu Norah called me and said that I looked like I was pregnant and asked which man I have ever had sex with and she took me to a clinic to test. The nurse informed that I was pregnant of four months, then I told my parents that I was raped by my uncle Matovu and then daddy came with me at Kakiri police station.*

Counsel submitted that PW1 stated that the 2nd defendant further made an additional statement and published in the English language, the following words defamatory of the plaintiffs;

*"... I would like to add on the statement I made on the 21 /4/2021 that I have remembered very well that uncle raped me on the 2nd day of December, 2020 and it was a Wednesday at 17:30hrs when I was from Multitech Business Institute where I study from. He was with his driver whom I can recall his names driving his Pajero car fully tinted windows. That is all I can state there. "*

PW1 further stated that following the defendants' statements at police, the plaintiffs were arrested and detained for more than 48 hours and they were taken through mental torture and anguish, harassment and embarrassment as a result of defendants' false allegations but were later released on police bond.

Counsel for the plaintiffs stated that PW1 informed court that the defendants in order to carry on their false allegations to their self-centered end and in a bid to tarnish his name, the 1st defendant further published

his unfounded and misleading and false allegations against him on various social media platforms including the family WhatsApp group where hence forth he was removed as a member which fact not only caused him psychological torture and anguish, but also caused him to be embarrassed among his own family members who thought him to have likely caused such a heinous act and thus lost the love, support and comfort of his own family.

PW1 further informed court that the publications of the false allegations on the social media were not only circulated within the family group but around his village and work place of Wakiso District which caused him to be shunned by his village mates and colleagues at work and this caused him further embarrassment and mental anguish and in a bid to clear his name, he incurred costs and filed a case at Kakiri Chief Magistrate's Court vide **Family Cause No. 005 of 2021** seeking for orders for declaration of non-parentage of the issue of Nakanwagi Betty of which he incurred costs in legal fees.

Counsel submitted that PW1 testified that the defendants instead of taking part in the above mentioned case, instead made further allegations and complaints against him at CID Headquarters, Kibuli claiming that he was conniving with the police officers at Kakiri, which allegations caused his second arrest and being subjected to a DNA test despite one that had already been ordered by court.

Both results of the DNA tests carried out under the order of court and the CID Investigators, confirmed that he was not the father of 2nd defendant's child, Grace Keirah.

pg. 7 08- July 2025

Even after that, the defendants abandoned the said complaint and instead started going on in the village claiming and making statements that they had forgiven him for something he did not do in the first place to just cover up for their false allegations which did not come to their intended results.

Counsel pointed out that PW1 further testified that the forensic report revealed the defendants' false accusations since they showed that he was not the father of the 2nd defendant's child and as a result, he was never charged before the courts of law. This is evidenced by a copy of a letter from the office of the Director of Public Prosecution dated 1st April and 5th April, 2022 directing the Regional Police Officer, Mpigi and the Resident State Attorney Wakiso to close the file and put it away, attached and marked **"MCM8 & "MCM9.**

Plaintiffs' counsel contended in his submissions that PW1 stated that as a result of the defendants' false allegations, inaccurate, and misleading statements and their malicious circulation on the various social media platforms, he has been shunned by not only his family members who believe the defendants' fabricated and deceitful allegations, but by his village mates and workmates and colleagues and this has caused him to suffer harassment, embarrassment, torture, pain and mental anguish of which he holds both defendants solely responsible and thus he is entitled to compensation in general damages. In consequence of the defendants' malicious and false allegations, his reputation both personal and as a businessman has been seriously damaged, and he has suffered considerable distress and embarrassment.

Counsel averred that this was confirmed by PW2; Katende Ismael in paragraphs 3-8 of his witness statement where he stated that *in*

*consequence of the defendants' malicious and false allegations, his reputation both personal and as a surveyor has been seriously damaged, and he has suffered considerable distress and embarrassment and financial loss during his arrest at police.*

Counsel submiited that the above evidence was confirmed by **PW3; NO.56013 DC Juma A. Ondego** who confirmed that on the 21st day of April, 2021, the 2nd defendant together with the 1st defendant (her father) lodged a complaint at Kakiri Police Station vide **Kakiri CRB: 1671 2021** against the 1st plaintiff herein on allegations of rape and both made statements recorded by a police officer named Nanzala Annet.

The 2nd defendant made an additional statement stating that she remembered the date on which she was raped and that was on the 2nd day of December, 2020, a Wednesday at 17:30hrs.

Counsel for the plaintiffs submitted that the plaintiffs were arrested on the evening of 22nd day of April, 2021 while they were at Lands in Wakiso.

Counsel stated that on 23rd of April,2021, PW3 together with **No.57572 Isesu Harriet Beatrice** went to the alleged scene of crime where the victim was allegedly raped from while in a white car during the day at around 5pm when she was coming from school. It was 5 meters (29 short footsteps) away from the main road and near a homestead and the place was occupied by people it being a busy road that is Kampala-Hoima Road.

The victim was taken for medical examination by **Isesu Harriet Beatrice** at Kakiri Health Centre III and it was found to be 4 (four) months pregnant, there was nothing like any rapture and the hymen had been raptured a long time ago.

Counsel submitted that PW3 together with **Isesu Harriet Beatrice** interrogated the suspect on where he was on 2nd of December 2020 the day and time of the alleged rape. The suspect stated that he had been at Centenary Bank (Mapeera Branch) on that particular day when he got a stroke and he was rushed to Mengo Hospital. PW3 recorded the statement of the suspect and also took him for medical examination at Kakiri WC III.

Counsel stated that on the 26th day of April, 2021, the file was submitted to the Resident State Attorney, Wakiso for perusal and legal advice. On the same date, the file was perused and the State Attorney advised to investigate the *alibi* raised by the suspect and to also wait for the victim to give birth and find out whether Matovu Cranmer was the father to the baby. Due to the fact that there was need for more time to investigate the alibi, Matovu Cranmer and Katende Ismail (the suspects) were granted police bond.

Counsel further narrated that in order to establish the alibi of the 1st plaintiff, the investigators went to Centenary Bank and got a statement from the tellers, then they proceeded to Mengo Hospital to find out whether Matovu had been admitted there on that day and time.

Counsel stated that the Regional DPP Mpigi called for the file and upon perusal agreed with the opinion of the RSA of Wakiso that the alibi raised by Matovu Cranmer be investigated and as well wait for the alleged victim to give birth so that the DNA would be done on the baby.

The investigators sought to recover the footage of what transpired at Centenary Bank- Mapeera House on the 2nd day of December, 2020 to determine whether Matovu actually got a stroke and was rushed to Mengo Hospital. Unfortunately, the footage had been overwritten as time had passed. However, statements were got from the tellers and the bank statement of Matovu's account showed that he transacted with the bank at 2:30pm but it was after he had transacted that he fainted and was rushed by an ambulance to Mengo Hospital.

Counsel submitted that PW3 and the investigating team including **Isesu Harriet Beatrice** went to Mengo Hospital and recorded a statement from the nurse (Ms. Joyce) who was called by Bukenya using Matovu's phone. The nurse stated that on arrival at around 3:00pm, Matovu was handed over to the doctor and he left the hospital at around 7:30pm and reached home at about 9:00pm.

The doctor who handled Matovu at Mengo acknowledged that he knew Matovu and confirmed that he had worked on him. He recorded a statement to that effect.

Counsel submitted that after the birth of the baby, PW3 called the father and the victim to bring the baby for the DNA testing as earlier advised in the case file by the DPP but they failed to do so. The 1st plaintiff obtained a court order for DNA test on the baby to prove paternity and resolve the matter with finality and the 2nd defendant plus the new born baby were subjected to DNA test at GA-Wandegeya.

Counsel submitted that the 1st defendant went to CID headquarters Kibuli and made a complaint that Matovu was conniving with police at Kakiri Station, the suspect was again arrested and taken to Kibuli and subjected to another DNA test at Forensic Directorate, Naguru. Results of

pg. 11 08- July 2025

the DNA test confirmed that Matovu was **not** the father of the victim's child.

The DPP advised that there was no evidence and case file be put away. The file was then taken back to Kakiri police station and was shelved.

**Counsel for the plaintiff** then submitted on **the law of defamation.** He averred that the legal test in defamation cases essentially takes three stands; *(a) the defendant made a defamatory statement concerning the plaintiff, (b) the defendant made an unprivileged publication of that statement to a third party, and (c) except where the libel is actionable perse, the plaintiff must plead and prove special damages*.

In a suit for *libel, a plaintiff has to prove that the relevant statement is defamatory, but he or she does not have to prove that it was a lie.* If a statement is defamatory, the court will simply assume that it was untrue. *The test of defamatory nature of a statement is its tendency of excite against the plaintiff the adverse opinions or feeling of other persons*. *See,'* **Okeny and 4 Ors v Odok (Civil Suit No 12 of 2009)**

Counsel cited that case of **Ssejjoba Geoffrey v. Rev. Rwabigonji Patrick [197] H. C. B 37**, where a defamatory statement was defined as *'one which has a tendency to injure the reputation of the person to whom it refers by lowering him in the estimation of right-thinking members of society generally and in particular to cause him to be regarded with feelings of hatred, contempt, ridicule, fear, dislike and disesteem*.

Citing the case of *Blaize Babigumira v. Hanns Besigye HCCS No. 744 of 1992***) and Okeny 4 Ors v Odok (supra)**, counsel averred that If words have been proved to be defamatory of the plaintiff, general damages will

pg. 12 08- July 2025

always be presumed, slander imputing criminal conduct is actionable perse. Imputation of commission of a criminal offence is actionable per-se without any need of proving damage on the part of the plaintiff.

Counsel quoted **Gatley on Libel and Slander (9th edition pg 7 para 1.5)** where the learned authors state:

*What is defamatory? There is no wholly satisfactory definition of a defamatory imputation. Three formulae have been particularly influential: (1) would the imputation tend to "lower the plaintiff in the estimation of rightthinking members of society generally? " (2) Would the imputation tend to cause others to shun or avoid the plaintiff? (3) would the words tend to expose the plaintiff to "hatred, contempt and ridicule?" The question "what is defamatory?" relates to the nature of the statement made by the defendant; words may be defamatory even if they are believed by no one and even though they are true, though in the latter case they are not of course actionable.*

*It is a statement which imputes conduct or qualities tending to disparage or degrade any person, or to expose a person to contempt, ridicule or public hatred or to prejudice him in the way of his office, profession or trade. It is a statement which tends to lower a person's reputation in the eyes of or the estimation of right thinking members of society generally or which tends to make them shun and avoid that person.*

*Once a statement is capable of being interpreted as an assertion of fact, the question then will be whether it imputes any moral fault or defect of personal character. For professional aspects, it will be deemed so if it imputes lack of*

pg. 13 08- July 2025

*qualification, knowledge, skill, capacity, judgment or efficiency in the conduct of one's trade or business or professional activity.*

Counsel submitted that there are certain established rules to determine whether a statement is defamatory or not. **The first rule** is that the entire statement complained of must be read and not only a part or parts of it. The **second** is that words are to be taken in the sense of their natural and ordinary meaning. See; **Okeny and 4 Ors v Odok (Civil Suit No 12 of 2009) 2019.**

The Court must have regard to what the words would convey to the ordinary man. In **Ssonko Gerald v Okech Tom [1978] HCB 36**, *it was held that the test is the general impression of the words on the right thinking person and it is from that perspective that the words are to be considered before determining whether they are defamatory or not. The determination depends on answering the question; "would the words tend to lower the plaintiff in the estimation of right-thinking members of society? "*

A typical form of defamation is an attack upon the moral character of the plaintiff attributing to him any form of disgraceful conduct, such as crime, dishonesty, untruthfulness, trickery, or cruelty **(see, Ssejjoba Geoffrey v Rev. Rwabigonji Patrick p9771 H. C. B 37).**

The person defamed does not have to prove that the words actually had any of these effects on any particular people or the public in general, only that the statement could tend to have that effect on an ordinary, reasonable listener. See,' **Okeny and 4 Ors v Odok (Civil Suit No 12 of 2009) 2019.**

pg. 14 08- July 2025

Although a statement need not be perfectly true, it should be substantially true in order not to be false. Slight inaccuracies of expression are immaterial if the defamatory statement is true in substance. See; **Okeny**

## **and 4 Ors v Odok (Civil Suit No 12 of 2009) 2019**.

Counsel elaborated that they convincingly had highlighted the statements that were made by the defendants stating that the 1st plaintiff is the brother of the 1st defendant, the 1st plaintiff is the uncle of the 2nd defendant, the 2nd plaintiff is the driver of the 1st plaintiff, the 1st plaintiff raped the 2nd defendant with the help of the 2nd plaintiff referred and were understood to refer to the plaintiffs, the plaintiffs cannot be trusted.

These words meant that the plaintiffs were persons who were rapists, womanizers and molesters, of terrible immoral character and not to be trusted.

Counsel submitted that the defendants caused their statements to be published by having it written down by the police and in message form, on the family WhatsApp group that the 1st plaintiff was part of and as a result, he was even exited from the same as seen in the evaluation of evidence herein.

Except where the libel is actionable per-se. the plaintiff must plead and prove special damages. The plaintiffs clearly indicated in their evidence that they suffered damages as a result of the defendants' defamatory statements about them.

**On what remedies were available to the Parties** Counsel for the plaintiffs sought for the following orders;

a) Compensation arising out of defamation.

b) Damages for defamation and libel.

c) Damages for falsehoods.

d) Damages for mental torture, distress, embarrassment and loss of trust caused

e) Special damages.

f) Punitive damages for writing and widely distributing defamatory article.

g) Aggravated damages for publication/distribution of the defamatory article widely.

h) interest on (a), (b), (c), & (d) at rate of 24% per annum from date when the cause of action arose until payment in full.

i) An injunction restraining the defendants and each of them, whether by themselves, their servants, or agents or otherwise, from further publishing or causing to be published the said or similar words defamatory of the plaintiffs or any other words.

j) Costs of the suit.

Counsel contended that the plaintiffs had proved to court that the statements of the defendants were defamatory of the plaintiffs and the same were published by the defendants.

Counsel submitted that from the evidence on record, the plaintiff had suffered for many years since the defendants defamed the plaintiffs. In the premises, Counsel prayed for compensation of **Ug.shs. 150,000,000/= (Uganda Shillings One Hundred Fifty Million Only)** to the 1st and 2nd plaintiffs against both the defendants herein for defamation.

Counsel further prayed for general damages of **Ug.shs. 50,000,000/= (Uganda Shillings Fifty Million Only)** to each of the plaintiffs against the defendants herein.

He prayed for interest on the compensation sum arising out of defamation, damages for defamation and libel, falsehoods, for mental torture, distress, embarrassment and loss of trust caused at rate of **24% per annum** from date when cause of action arose until payment in full.

The plaintiffs pleaded special damages as follows;

- a) Instruction fees of **Ug.shs. 4,000,000/:** (Uganda Shillings Four Million Only) - **b)** Payment for carrying out DNA test as ordered by court of Ug.shs. **750,000/=** - c) Execution fees of Ug.shs. **4,000,000/=** - d) Costs of the suit

## **Determination and Analysis**

I have read the elaborate submission of Counsel for the Plaintiffs and analyzed the facts, laws and cases cited which have guided me in reaching the conclusions herein.

The main issue to determine in a defamation case is whether or not the word complained of were defamatory and whether they were uttered or published by the defendant(s).

Defamation may be expressed in form of words (oral or written) or through pictures, cartoons, among others.

*The essential ingredients of defamation are;*

- a) The Defendant made a statement about the plaintiff to another; - b) The statement was injurious to the plaintiff's reputation and lowered the reputation of the plaintiff in the eyes of right thinking members of society; - c) The statement was untrue; - d) If the plaintiff is a public figure, or as is known these days the plaintiff was a celebrity or in some way a popular figure in this case, the defendant must have made the false statement intentionally or with reckless disregard of the plaintiffs rights; and - *e)* There are no privileges or defenses enjoyed by the defendant.

## See: *The Red Pepper Publications Ltd & Anor v Rtd Chief Justice Samuel W. Wako Wambuzi, CACA No. 128 of 2017.*

Typical examples of defamation include an attack on the moral character of the plaintiff attributing to him/her any form of disgraceful conduct such as crime, fraud, dishonesty among others. See: *Geoffrey Ssejjoba v Rev.*

## *Patrick Rwabigonji HCCS No. 1 of 1976 [1977] UGHCCD 1***.**

A case for defamation is proved when it can be established by evidence that the words and utterances complained about had the effect of *(1) lowering the plaintiff(s) in the estimation of right-thinking members of society generally " (2) causing others to shun or avoid the plaintiff(s) (3) exposing the plaintiff to hatred, contempt and ridicule.*

In the case of **Okeny and 4 Ors v Odok (Civil Suit No 12 of 2009) 2019** cited repeatedly by the plaintiffs, the person defamed does not have to prove that the words actually had any of these effects on any particular

people or the public in general, only that the statement could tend to have that effect on an ordinary, reasonable listener.

As counsel for the plaintiffs rightly observed, and as held in the case of **Ssonko Gerald v Okech Tom [1978] HCB 36,** the court must have regard to what the words would convey to the ordinary man. In this case *it was held that the test is the general impression of the words on the right thinking person and it is from that perspective that the words are to be considered before determining whether they are defamatory or not.*

*The determination depends on answering the question; "would the words tend to lower the plaintiff in the estimation of right-thinking members of society?*

Applying the above legal principles to the case at hand, will help us to come to a fair determination as to whether the defendants' statements, publications and actions had the effect of painting the plaintiffs in such a manner as to be held in disesteem, ridicule or contempt by right thinking members of the society.

According to the facts, the 1st Plaintiffs were both surveyors. The 1st plaintiff was a public figure in his community and family. It is not disputed that the utterances containing the alleged defamatory statements were made and published by the defendants.

In the much cited case of **Okeny and 4 Ors v Odok (Civil Suit No 12 of 2009) 2019 court stated that** the words complained of are to be taken *(interpreted)* in the sense of their natural and ordinary meaning.

The actions of the Defendants of lodging an official complaint vide **Kakiri CRB: 167/2021** on the accusation of the crime of rape of his own

pg. 19 08- July 2025

daughter(niece) the 2nd defendant and impregnating her, needs to be tested against what effect it would ordinarily have on the perceptions of the members of society.

What imputation can an ordinary member of society make out of an accusation of incestuous rape and impregnation of a daughter? Would any ordinary member of society hold the accused person in high regard? Would they want to associate with such a person? Would an ordinary member of society wish to relate with such a person? Supposing such a person held a high office in an organization or government or the society would those entities wish to associate with such a person anymore?

We however have to determine whether the lodging of the rape case with Police was per-se defamatory.

It is the law that an accused person is not guilty until proven so. In criminal cases, that proof lies with the prosecution and the standard of proof is beyond reasonable doubt. If the immediate result of any accusation of such a grave nature was a suit of defamation, the net result would be to deter people from reporting such heinous crimes to the police for fear of suits against them for defamation, slander and libel.

It therefore behooves any person before reporting such crimes *(which have the potential to defame the accused persons*) to have a reasonable amount of certainty. The decision to accuse a person must not be reckless wanton and bereft of contextual elements which lend credence to the accusation.

It must be based on reasonable suspicion. There must be a nexus between the accusation and truth or evidence. The report must not be driven by or be actuated by malice and intrigue. In the instant case, there was reasonable grounds for the 1st defendant to believe that his daughter the niece of the 1st plaintiff, had been impregnated by someone and the young lady when asked, pointed her accusing fingers at the uncle, the 1st plaintiff. It was therefore reasonable for the 1st Defendant to lodge an official police complaint due to the criminal nature of the case. That report was therefore excusable and not per-se defamatory because the 1st defendant was duty bound to lodge such a report as anyone else would.

The gravity of the alleged offence overrode the need to protect the esteem and regard of the accused whether they were persons of high reputation or not.

The particular set of facts in the instant case poses a double limbed scenario which I shall handle one at a time.

The first limb or scenario is; had the investigators proved that the young lady (2nd defendant) had indeed been raped and impregnated by the 1st plaintiff, the matter would have ended in a prosecution and possibly conviction and there would be no ground whatsoever for maintaining any case in defamation. The defense would be that **it was true** and that the law had taken its course. All so called right thinking members of society would therefore rightly hold the accused person in contempt, ridicule and derision for his criminal actions.

The 2nd limb or scenario is where the report or the lodgment of the rape case was actuated by malice, rivalry or deliberate attempt to bring down the 1st plaintiff. The 2nd defendant in her statement mentions that the brothers (her father and her uncle) had a land wrangle. It is probable that

the land wrangle was the driving animus behind the lodgment of the criminal case of rape against the 1st plaintiff. In this case any reasonable person would be able to see that it was case of blatant lies and a plot to smear the plaintiff and bring him down.

The outcome of this scenario would point to no other premise other than that the defendants intended to falsely malign, slander, defame and libelously smear the reputation of the plaintiff. In this scenario, a case for defamation stands a strong chance of success.

I have looked at the history of the instant case right from the first report that the defendants made to police on 26th of April 2021 down through the valleys and alleys of the DNA tests and the results that clearly indicated that the first plaintiff was not the father of Grace Keriah the daughter of the second defendant.

What struck me at this stage is the fact that even after two DNA tests conducted in two different places excluded the first plaintiff as the father of the second defendant's baby, the defendants continued to pummel, denigrate, defame, publish and smear the first plaintiff as a rapist, a corrupt man influencing the policemen at the police stations, a person who could not be relied on to say the truth. The defendants refused to accept that the 1st plaintiff had been cleared of the criminal case based on incontrovertible scientific evidence.

It is at this stage where it comes out clearly that there was malice and a plot to bring down the reputation and the status of the first plaintiff in society in the eyes of the ordinary members of society.

As has been discussed above the test for defamation is that the effect of the utterances or publication complained of must be to lower the reputation of the plaintiff in the eyes of ordinary members of society by exposing the plaintiff to contempt, odium and disesteem among right thinking members of society.

The result of such imputation is that the plaintiff loses their reputation in the society because the society shuns them does not want to associate with them, holds them in derision with the result that they could lose their positions in society, at the workplace or lose their business connections or professional status and **thereby suffer loss mental anguish, unnecessary shame, ostracism and damage** to their reputation.

In the instant case, there is ample evidence to show that even after the authorities including the DPP dropped the rape case and shelved the file against the plaintiffs due to lack of evidence, the defendants continued to spread in social media (WhatsApp)and other avenues, the fact that the first plaintiff had indeed raped and impregnated 2nd defendant.

Moreover, the 1st plaintiff had at his own cost filed and prosecuted a case vide *Family Cause 005 of 2021 at Chief Magistrates court at Kakiri* to clear his name.

The defendants dodged the DNA tests until they were forcefully brought to the laboratory via a court order. At this stage the defendants took a new tangent by reporting the case at CID Headquarters Kibuli Police still with intent to prove that the plaintiffs were in a criminal enterprise and that the 1st plaintiff particularly was the father through rape of the 2nd defendants baby.

pg. 23 08- July 2025

This detailed series of actions by the defendants point to an ulterior motive that could only be interpreted as nefarious.

It is at this stage that I am persuaded in my analysis that there was more that met the eyes and there seems to have been a plot contrived to bring down the person of the first plaintiff - **Cranmer Matovu.**

The scientific evidence of DNA having excluded the 1st plaintiff as father of the 2nd defendant's daughter, would have been a point at which the defendants would have sued for peace and swallowed humble pie, even apologized publicly and worked to restore the shredded reputation of the plaintiff; instead to the shock of the plaintiffs, it was the point when the Defendants took to further uttering and circulating defamatory and libelous statements in the village.

The persistent accusation of incestuous rape when interpreted in the natural sense or the natural words leads to an imputation of the plaintiff as a criminal and has the effect to defame and lower him in the eyes and estimation of the common members of society.

Rapists are usually banished and ostracized from society and serve long penal custodial detention. The natural meaning of a rapist depicts a forceful criminal sexual predator with no respect or decency. The word in its natural sense is a permanently negative description which when applied to a person of repute brings them down; more so if they have been cleared and proven innocent as was in the instant case.

The 1st Plaintiff is a surveyor a professional person, a family man and arresting him at a busy lands office could have had such a mentally

distressing effect. It could have affected his work, his professional circles and wasted his time in defense of a deliberately contrived criminal case.

I therefore find that a case for defamation has been established by the plaintiffs.

## **Remedies available to the plaintiffs**

The Plaintiffs sought for compensation of UGX 150,000,000/= and general damages of UGX 50,000,000 each. The law is that general damages are the direct, natural or probable consequence of the act complained of and are awarded at the discretion of the Court.

The purpose of the damages is to restore the aggrieved person to the position they would have been in had the breach or wrong not occurred as in discussed in the case of *Kibimba Rice Ltd v Umar Salim, SC Civil Appeal No. 17 of 1992.*

In the assessment of general damages, the court should be guided by the value of the subject matter, the economic inconvenience that the plaintiff may have endured as was observed in the case of *Uganda Commercial bank v Kigozi [2002] 1 EA 305).*

Sir Thomas Bingham MR in the case of *John v MGN Ltd [1962] 2ALLER 35* stated thus; *"The successful plaintiff in a defamation action is entitled to recover, as general compensatory damages, such sum as will compensate him for the wrong he has suffered. That sum must compensate him for the damage to his reputation; vindicate his good name, and take account of the distress, hurt and humiliation which the defamatory publication caused.*

*In assessing the appropriate damages for injury to reputation the most important factor is the gravity of the libel; the more closely it touches the plaintiff's personal integrity, professional reputation, honor, courage, loyalty and the core attributes of his personality, the more serious it is likely to be. The extent of the publication is very relevant: a libel published to millions has a greater potential to cause damage than a libel published to a handful of people"*.

In the instant case, the 1st Plaintiff led evidence showing that he is a surveyor. He testified that he suffered ridicule amongst the family and friends he was removed from a family WhatsApp group and abandoned by his family after the said publication. His evidence was corroborated by PW2 and PW3.

In view of the above evidence, and in absence of any evidence to the contrary, I am satisfied that the Plaintiff had a reputation to protect, which was injured by the actions of the Defendants and the Plaintiffs are entitled to compensation. The sum of **UGX 150,000,000**/= and **UGX 50,000,000 each** for general damages proposed by the Plaintiffs is, however, astronomical.

Taking all the circumstances of the case into consideration, I award the Plaintiffs damages as follows:

1) **UGX. 20,000,000 (Twenty Million)** shillings to the 1st plaintiff Cranmer Matovu (*this is because the 1st plaintiff never adduced evidence on the extent of publication and broadcast of the defamatory statements. He only attached one WhatsApp picture of him with the*

*caption translated from Luganda as 'this is Matovu Cranmer Musoke the man who raped his brothers daughter; even then, it did not indicate the number of members in the group or the extent of the re- broadcast (if any) within social media group. There was no media print outs to indicate circulation of the printed words complained of. However, it is evident that his name was dragged down a dirty drain and that his immediate circle of colleagues, friends and business associates whose number we cannot ascertain was aware of what was going on with his reputation. The sum awarded above may not restore his full reputation but can restore his name to a reasonable degree of good standing in society. He can then resume his status as a man cleared of the malicious aspersions cast against him by the defendants.)*

- 2) **UGX. 7,000,000 (Seven Million shillings)** to the 2nd plaintiff Ismail Katende *(this is because the 2nd Plaintiff never led any evidence to show how the utterances of the defendants affected him. He is also a surveyor but at the time an escort and driver of the 1st plaintiff who was not accused of anything apart from being present at the scene of the rape. He thus did not suffer as much as the 1st plaintiff nor did he plead any particular provable special claim*) - 3) Special damages to the plaintiffs as follows: - a. **UGX. 4,000,000 (Four Million)** for instruction fees as prayed. - b. **UGX. 4,000,000 (Four Million) for** execution fees as prayed - c. **UGX. 750,000 (Seven Hundred and Fifty Thousand)** shillings refund for the DNA test costs to the 1st Plaintiff.

- d. Interest at 8% per annum on all the awards above from date of judgment until payment in full. - 4) A permanent injunction restraining the defendants from further by themselves or through their agents making false utterances and defamatory statements against the plaintiffs. - 5) Regarding the costs of the suit, Section 27 of the Civil Procedure Act provides that costs follow the event unless the court upon good cause determines otherwise. The Plaintiffs are awarded costs of the suit.

**I so order.**

**Bonny Isaac Teko**

**Acting Judge**

pg. 28 08- July 2025