News
Court dismisses defamation case against Fort Portal City Woman MP
According to court records, Mugisa allegedly accused Kasoro of soliciting money from youths in Fort Portal while promising to provide them with chicks, receiving 400 chicks without providing shelter for them, taking youths to Kampala where they got stranded, and diverting transport money sent to assist them for his personal use.
Kasoro had sued Mugisa seeking a declaration that statements she allegedly made during the Tooro People's Conference held at Kinyamasika on December 20, 2024, were defamatory. (Courtesy Photo)
By: Jonan Tusingwire, Journalist @New Vision
FORT PORTAL - The Chief Magistrate's Court in Fort Portal has dismissed a defamation case filed against the city's woman representative in Parliament after finding that the case did not disclose a legally sustainable cause of action.
The case was filed by Patrick Kasoro Amanyire, the former youth chairperson for Fort Portal City North, against legislator Linda Irene Mugisa.
In her July 13 ruling, Chief Magistrate Joan Okori upheld a preliminary objection raised by the defendant and dismissed the case with costs.
Kasoro had sued Mugisa seeking a declaration that statements she allegedly made during the Tooro People's Conference held at Kinyamasika on December 20, 2024, were defamatory.
He also sought a public apology, general damages of sh15 million and costs of the suit.
According to court records, Mugisa allegedly accused Kasoro of soliciting money from youths in Fort Portal while promising to provide them with chicks, receiving 400 chicks without providing shelter for them, taking youths to Kampala where they got stranded, and diverting transport money sent to assist them for his personal use.
However, during the hearing, the defense team raised a preliminary objection arguing that the suit was legally defective because Kasoro had failed to set out the exact alleged defamatory words.
The defence relied on Order 6 Rule 3 of the Civil Procedure Rules and several judicial precedents, arguing that in defamation cases, the actual words complained of must be pleaded verbatim for a cause of action to arise.
According to court records, Mugisa allegedly accused Kasoro of soliciting money from youths in Fort Portal while promising to provide them with chicks, receiving 400 chicks without providing shelter for them, taking youths to Kampala where they got stranded, and diverting transport money sent to assist them for his personal use.
However, during the hearing, the defense team raised a preliminary objection arguing that the suit was legally defective because Kasoro had failed to set out the exact alleged defamatory words.
The defence relied on Order 6 Rule 3 of the Civil Procedure Rules and several judicial precedents, arguing that in defamation cases, the actual words complained of must be pleaded verbatim for a cause of action to arise.
In response, Kasoro, who represented himself, informed court that the alleged defamatory statements were contained in an audio recording saved on a flash drive which he could play before court if required.
In her ruling, Magistrate Okori noted that Order 6 Rule 1(e) of the Civil Procedure Rules requires a plaint to contain the facts constituting the cause of action. She emphasized that in defamation cases, the exact words complained of must be reproduced verbatim in the case.
The court relied on previous court decisions, including Collins v Johns (1955) and De Souza v Zenith Printing Works, as well as the East African Court of Appeal decision in Nkalubo v Kibirige, which establish that defamatory words must be specifically pleaded and, where spoken in another language, accompanied by an English translation.
The chief magistrate found that Kasoro merely summarised the alleged statements instead of quoting the exact words that were allegedly spoken. She held that without those words appearing verbatim in the case, the suit disclosed no cause of action.
The court consequently struck out the paragraph containing the alleged defamatory statements and, under Order 7 Rule 11(a) of the Civil Procedure Rules, rejected the entire plaint for failure to disclose a cause of action.
"The defendant's objection is hereby upheld, and the suit is dismissed with costs to the defendant," reads Okori's ruling.
In her ruling, Magistrate Okori noted that Order 6 Rule 1(e) of the Civil Procedure Rules requires a plaint to contain the facts constituting the cause of action. She emphasized that in defamation cases, the exact words complained of must be reproduced verbatim in the case.
The court relied on previous court decisions, including Collins v Johns (1955) and De Souza v Zenith Printing Works, as well as the East African Court of Appeal decision in Nkalubo v Kibirige, which establish that defamatory words must be specifically pleaded and, where spoken in another language, accompanied by an English translation.
The chief magistrate found that Kasoro merely summarised the alleged statements instead of quoting the exact words that were allegedly spoken. She held that without those words appearing verbatim in the case, the suit disclosed no cause of action.
The court consequently struck out the paragraph containing the alleged defamatory statements and, under Order 7 Rule 11(a) of the Civil Procedure Rules, rejected the entire plaint for failure to disclose a cause of action.
"The defendant's objection is hereby upheld, and the suit is dismissed with costs to the defendant," reads Okori's ruling.