The High Court has ordered Uganda Revenue Authority staff member James Abola to pay a fellow employee, Nicholas Jjengo, Shs100 million for defaming him in messages posted on a URA Senior Management WhatsApp forum.
Justice Isaac Bonny Teko delivered the judgment on June 17. He found that Abola, a senior officer in URA’s Staff Compliance Department, published defamatory statements against Jjengo, a customs officer.
The court found that the messages linked Jjengo to a shooting incident and portrayed him as having attacked another man over a woman.
“A declaration is issued that the defendant’s (Abola) publications of September 18, 2022, concerning the plaintiff (Jjengo) on the URA senior management WhatsApp forum were defamatory of the plaintiff (Jjengo),” ruled Justice Teko.
The judge ordered Abola to pay Shs70 million in general damages and Shs30 million in exemplary damages.
“The defendant shall pay the plaintiff general damages for libel in the sum of Shs70m. The defendant shall pay the plaintiff exemplary damages in the sum of Shs30m,” the judge held.
Court orders written apology
Justice Teko also directed Abola to apologise to Jjengo on the same WhatsApp platform where the defamatory statements were made.
“The defendant (Abola) shall, within fourteen days from the date of this judgment, issue a written apology to the plaintiff (Jjengo), and publish the same on the URA Senior Management WhatsApp forum,” the judge ruled.
The court also permanently restrained Abola from making similar defamatory statements against Jjengo.
The case arose from messages posted on September 18, 2022. In one of the posts, Abola told senior managers that police in Kasangati were looking for Jjengo Nicholas, a Customs Officer, over allegations that he had fired three bullets at victims the previous night.
A second message added more detail. It alleged that Jjengo had followed another man’s vehicle and opened fire after a woman reportedly chose to ride in the other man’s car following a social outing.
Judge faults reckless publication
Justice Teko said URA senior management had a legitimate interest in receiving information about serious allegations involving a staff member.
However, he ruled that qualified privilege did not protect reckless or sensational publication.
The judge explained that qualified privilege may protect responsible communication made in good faith. But he said it does not cover reckless embellishment, sensationalism, or publication made with indifference to truth.
“The defendant’s (Abola) first message may have been closer to a preliminary management alert. The difficulty arises with the second message. The Defendant moved from reporting that police were looking for the Plaintiff (Jjengo) in relation to a firearm incident to circulating a narrative that the Plaintiff had pursued a victim over a woman from an outing and shot at the victim’s car. That narrative was grave, colourful, sensational and personally destructive,” Justice Teko held.
Jjengo sued Abola, saying the statements falsely presented him as a criminal, a violent person, and an immoral individual. He argued that the posts damaged his reputation among URA’s top leadership.
Defence rejected
In his defence, Abola said he had received the information from a police officer attached to the Staff Compliance Division. He argued that he shared it in good faith as part of his official duties.
Abola also said the communication was made on an occasion of qualified privilege because URA management had a legitimate interest in the matter.
Justice Teko rejected that defence in relation to the damaging parts of the publication.
“The natural and ordinary meaning of that message is that the Plaintiff was wanted by police for shooting at victims. That is a serious imputation of criminality and violence,” the judge held.
The court also found that the second message portrayed Jjengo as immoral, reckless, violent, and unfit for trust. The judge noted that the publication referred to the woman involved as a “skirt”.
Justice Teko said evidence showed Jjengo’s supervisor, James Malinzi, had contacted him to verify the allegations. Malinzi later forwarded Jjengo’s phone number to Abola so he could establish the facts directly.
However, the court found that Abola did not carry out meaningful verification before sharing the damaging narrative.
“The fact that investigations were ongoing should have made him more cautious…,” Justice Teko said.
The judge added that Abola could not avoid liability by repeatedly saying the matter was only alleged or still under investigation.
“Defamation may be committed by repetition of allegations. A person who republishes defamatory allegations cannot escape liability merely by saying that the matter is alleged,” the judge ruled.
Court explains damages
Justice Teko found that Abola acted with malice in the legal sense. He said the conduct showed reckless disregard for the truth and indifference to the effect of the statements on Jjengo’s reputation.
In assessing damages, the judge considered the seriousness of the allegations. He noted that the messages accused Jjengo of criminal conduct, violence, and moral impropriety.
He also considered the audience. The messages were circulated among URA’s highest-ranking managers.
However, the judge noted that the publication remained limited to a restricted management forum. He also observed that there was no evidence that Jjengo was dismissed, demoted, or denied promotion because of the messages.
Even so, the court held that the defamatory posts caused enough harm to justify substantial compensation and vindication.
