Ofwono pants case starts
MOVEMENT information chief Ofwono Opondo’s sh100m suit against The Monitor newspaper over a shoplifting story, began yesterday.
By Jude Etyang and Hillary Kiirya
MOVEMENT information chief Ofwono Opondo’s sh100m suit against The Monitor newspaper over a shoplifting story, began yesterday.
It was a dramatic start for the case, as the trial judge, Stella Arach Amoko, almost dismissed Opondo’s application for an injunction because his lawyer, Steven Mungoma, was late.
Mungoma arrived at 9:40am, 10 minutes into the proceedings, while Arach was about to dismiss the application.
She, however, pardoned Mungoma who said he was delayed by traffic on his way from Mukono.
Opondo was not present at the hearing. Arach said she would rule on the application on May 9.
On April 5, The Monitor reported that Opondo had been fined for suspected shoplifting and that he had walked away with undeclared underwear and a pen.
The paper said Opondo recorded a statement under the name John Okello. It said he was searched and found to be armed with a pistol, raising suspicion.
Mungoma yesterday asked the court to slap a temporary injunction on The Monitor not to publish any more articles relating to the shoplifting scandal, until the main suit for defamation is disposed of.
Making a passionate submission, Mungoma said the continued publication of the articles was malicious and deliberately intended to “inflict maximum damage†on Opondo’s reputation.
Mungoma said the stories would injure Opondo’s public image. He said the situation was made worse by The Monitor running an opinion poll asking the public to vote on whether Opondo shoplifted.
“What is even more disturbing, the defendants have continued to run opinion polls. This shows it’s a malicious and deliberate act to inflict maximum injury to this young man with a promising career,†said Mungoma.
He said every article published affected Opondo’s reputation and that of his employer, the Movement Secretariat and the Government.
He quoted another Monitor story, headlined: “Government distances itself from Opondo scandal,†in which presidential adviser John Nagenda reportedly said a “public official is supposed to be beyond suspicion.â€
“If the respondents are not restrained from further publication, they will not only be acting illegally but also in contempt of this court,†said Mungoma.
The Monitor lawyer, James Nangwala, said an injunction would amount to suppression of press freedom. “It’s wiser that court abstains from interference until the trial,†said Nangwala, “because the court decision may turn on the character of the plaintiff.â€
He said Opondo’s character was an issue in their defence and that they would show that he was a man of truculent character, who extra-judicially killed a suspected thief.
MOVEMENT information chief Ofwono Opondo’s sh100m suit against The Monitor newspaper over a shoplifting story, began yesterday.
It was a dramatic start for the case, as the trial judge, Stella Arach Amoko, almost dismissed Opondo’s application for an injunction because his lawyer, Steven Mungoma, was late.
Mungoma arrived at 9:40am, 10 minutes into the proceedings, while Arach was about to dismiss the application.
She, however, pardoned Mungoma who said he was delayed by traffic on his way from Mukono.
Opondo was not present at the hearing. Arach said she would rule on the application on May 9.
On April 5, The Monitor reported that Opondo had been fined for suspected shoplifting and that he had walked away with undeclared underwear and a pen.
The paper said Opondo recorded a statement under the name John Okello. It said he was searched and found to be armed with a pistol, raising suspicion.
Mungoma yesterday asked the court to slap a temporary injunction on The Monitor not to publish any more articles relating to the shoplifting scandal, until the main suit for defamation is disposed of.
Making a passionate submission, Mungoma said the continued publication of the articles was malicious and deliberately intended to “inflict maximum damage†on Opondo’s reputation.
Mungoma said the stories would injure Opondo’s public image. He said the situation was made worse by The Monitor running an opinion poll asking the public to vote on whether Opondo shoplifted.
“What is even more disturbing, the defendants have continued to run opinion polls. This shows it’s a malicious and deliberate act to inflict maximum injury to this young man with a promising career,†said Mungoma.
He said every article published affected Opondo’s reputation and that of his employer, the Movement Secretariat and the Government.
He quoted another Monitor story, headlined: “Government distances itself from Opondo scandal,†in which presidential adviser John Nagenda reportedly said a “public official is supposed to be beyond suspicion.â€
“If the respondents are not restrained from further publication, they will not only be acting illegally but also in contempt of this court,†said Mungoma.
The Monitor lawyer, James Nangwala, said an injunction would amount to suppression of press freedom. “It’s wiser that court abstains from interference until the trial,†said Nangwala, “because the court decision may turn on the character of the plaintiff.â€
He said Opondo’s character was an issue in their defence and that they would show that he was a man of truculent character, who extra-judicially killed a suspected thief.