The High Court has ordered a Uganda Revenue Authority (URA) staff member to pay a fellow employee Shs100 million in damages for defaming him through messages posted on a URA Senior Management WhatsApp group.
In a judgment delivered on June 17th, Justice Isaac Bonny Teko found that James Abola, a senior officer in URA’s Staff Compliance Department, defamed customs officer Nicholas Jjengo by circulating unverified allegations linking him to a shooting incident and suggesting he had pursued and 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.
Adding, ‘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 court awarded Jjengo Shs70 million in general damages and Shs30 million in punitive damages, bringing the total award to Shs100 million. Abola was also ordered to issue a written apology within 14 days of the judgment on the same WhatsApp platform and was permanently restrained from making similar defamatory statements against his colleague.
‘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 held.
The dispute arose from messages posted on September 18, 2022, in the URA Senior Management WhatsApp forum. In one of the messages, Abola informed senior managers that police in Kasangati were looking for Jjengo Nicholas, a Customs Officer who had allegedly fired three bullets at victims the previous night.
A second message went further, claiming that Jjengo had followed another man’s vehicle and opened fire after a woman allegedly chose to ride in the victim’s car instead of his following a social outing.
The judge explained that, however, qualified privilege protects responsible communication made in good faith; it does not protect 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, arguing that the statements falsely portrayed him as a criminal, a violent individual, and an immoral person, thereby damaging his reputation among URA’s top leadership.
In his defence, Abola had noted that he had received the information from a police officer attached to the Staff Compliance Division and shared it in good faith as part of his official duties. He argued that the communication was made on an occasion of qualified privilege because it concerned a matter of legitimate interest to URA management.
However, Justice Teko held that while senior management had a legitimate interest in receiving information about serious allegations involving a staff member, the protection of qualified privilege did not extend to reckless and sensational publications.
“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 further observed that the second message portrayed Jjengo as immoral, reckless, violent, and unfit for trust by suggesting that he had acted out of jealousy involving a woman described in the publication as a skirt.
Justice Teko noted that evidence showed Jjengo’s supervisor, James Malinzi, had contacted the plaintiff to verify the allegations and subsequently forwarded his telephone number to Abola so that he could establish the facts directly. Despite this opportunity, the court found that Abola failed to carry out meaningful verification before circulating the damaging narrative.
“The fact that investigations were ongoing should have made him more cautious…,” Justice Teko said.
He added that although Abola repeatedly stated that the matter was merely alleged and still under investigation, that disclaimer did not excuse the publication of serious accusations to an influential audience.
“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.
The court found that Abola’s conduct demonstrated malice in the legal sense through reckless disregard for the truth and indifference to the impact of the statements on Jjengo’s reputation.
In assessing damages, Justice Teko acknowledged that the allegations were grave because they accused Jjengo of criminal conduct, violence, and moral impropriety. He also considered the fact that the statements were circulated among URA’s highest-ranking managers.
At the same time, the judge noted that the publication was limited to a restricted management forum and that there was no evidence Jjengo was dismissed, demoted, or denied promotion as a result of the allegations.
The judge further held that the defamatory messages caused sufficient harm to warrant substantial compensation and vindication.