Pius Bigirimana, the Judiciary Permanent Secretary
The Appellate Court (Court of Appeal) has dismissed a case filed by Daily Monitor seeking to overturn an earlier ruling in which the Newspaper lost a defamatory case against Pius Bigirimana.
The Court also directed Daily Monitor Newspaper to pay a total sum of Shs450 million to Pius Bigirimana, the Judiciary Permanent Secretary, as compensatory damages for defaming him in a series of articles published on several dates between 2012 and 2015.
Bigirimana at a time served as Permanent Secretary to the Office of the Prime Minister before he was transferred to Gender Ministry in the same capacity.
Currently, he is the Secretary to the Judiciary .
The judgment delivered on Thursday by Lady Justice Elizabeth Musoke comes on heels of an appeal by Daily Monitor challenging the judgement of the High Court judge Musa Ssekaana delivered on December 10, 2021. The Appeal case was heard by Lady Justice Elizabeth Musoke, Justice Muzamiru Mutangula Kibedi, Justice Christopher Gashirabake. Only Kibedi disstented with the ruling.
Daily Monitor was represented by lawyers, James Nangwala and Brian Kajubi while Bigirimana was represented by Godfrey Himbaza and Twalhat Ssebumpenje.
Justice Ssekaana awarded costs to Bigirimana amounting to Shs450 million in a lawsuit where the PS demanded Shs1billion in general damages for defamation and exemplary damages of Shs900 million.
In addition, he sought an order compelling the defendants to publish an apology in the said newspapers and online news channel and a permanent injunction restraining the defendants and their agents, editors and publishers from making, publishing and circulating any further defamatory stories on him.
According to Bigirimana, between the year 2012 and 2015, numerous malicious, spiteful, untrue and defamatory publications were made against him in the Daily Monitor, Saturday Monitor and Sunday Monitor.
The said publications have since been injurious to the person of Bigirimana.
Some of them include ‘Auditors target Bigirimana in cash probe; a publication of 14th October 2012’, ‘MPs order Government to remove Bigirimana; a publication of 2nd November 2012’,’Bigirimana contradicts himself on purchase of Ministers’ cars; a publication of 30th November 2012’, ‘Bigirimana’s wife acquires Shs.250 million Mercedes Benz’, and ‘Corruption Ledger; a publication of 10th March 2013’ among very many other publications within the said time frame.
Court of Appeal agrees with Justice Ssekaana that the right to reputation is acknowledged as an inherent personal right of every person.
“A man’s reputation is his property and perhaps more valuable than any other property. Indeed, if we reflect on the degree of suffering occasioned by a loss of character and compare it with that occasioned by loss of property, the amount of injury by defamation far exceeds that loss of property,” Ssekaana ruled in 2021.
In major judgement of Court of Appeal 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 (one cited by Daily Monitor lawyers) concerned one defamatory publication while the present case concerns 15 different defamatory publications, published over a space of 3 years. The sum of Ug. 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 Ug. shs. 100,000,000/= in 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,” Justice Elizabeth Musoke ruled.
