High Court Holds Social Media User Liable for Defamatory Publications, Awards UGX 60 Million in Damages, and Orders Public Retraction and Apology

CARLTON DOUGLAS KASIRYE v SHEENA AHUMUZA BAGEINE ALIAS TASHA

High Court of Uganda at Kampala (Civil Division), Civil Suit No. 0025 of 2020, before Hon. Justice Collins Acellam, judgment delivered 13th August 2026.

Snap Shot

The High Court has found Sheena Ahumuza Bageine Alias Tasha liable for publishing defamatory statements against the Plaintiff on social media platforms, including X (formerly Twitter), Instagram, Facebook and WhatsApp.

The Court held that the publications falsely portrayed the Plaintiff as a rapist, a habitual abuser of women and a person of immoral character. The Court found that the Plaintiff had proved the essential ingredients of the tort of defamation on a balance of probabilities and that the Defendant had failed to establish any lawful defence to the publications.

In determining the appropriate remedies, the Court awarded the Plaintiff UGX 50,000,000 in general damages and UGX 10,000,000 in exemplary damages, issued a permanent injunction restraining further publication of the impugned statements or statements of similar import, and ordered the Defendant to publish an unequivocal retraction and public apology within fourteen (14) days. The apology was ordered to remain publicly accessible for thirty (30) consecutive days.

The decision also sends a strong message concerning the consequences of persisting with allegedly defamatory publications after being placed on notice. In appropriate circumstances, continued publication, absence of retraction and failure to apologize may not only increase compensatory damages but may also justify exemplary damages, injunctive relief and an order for public retraction and apology.

Facts

The Plaintiff, Carlton Douglas Kasirye, instituted this suit against the Defendant, Sheena Ahumuza Bageine alias Tasha, arising from alleged defamatory publications. He sought general and punitive damages, a permanent injunction restraining further publication, an order directing retraction and a public apology, interest, and costs.

The Plaintiff alleged that, on or about 2nd January 2020 and on several occasions thereafter, the Defendant published, and caused to be published, statements concerning him on X, Instagram, Facebook and WhatsApp, falsely portraying him as a rapist, a habitual abuser of women, and a person of immoral character. He averred that the publications were widely circulated and read by members of the public, including his family, friends, professional colleagues, and members of the legal fraternity.

The Plaintiff contended that the publications were false, malicious, and defamatory, gravely injuring his personal and professional reputation, exposing him to public hatred, ridicule and contempt, and causing emotional distress and consequential loss. He stated that, despite requesting removal of the publications and issuing a notice of intention to sue, the Defendant declined to retract the publications or apologise, and instead persisted in making further defamatory publications.

The Defendant denied the Plaintiff's allegations and maintained that she was not liable to him in defamation, denying that she authored, published, or was otherwise responsible for the impugned publications, or that she owned or controlled the social media account from which they emanated.

Issues for Determination

1. Whether the statements or publications complained of were false and defamatory of the Plaintiff ?

2. Whether the Plaintiff is entitled to the remedies sought ?

The Plaintiff's Submissions

On the first issue, counsel for the Plaintiff submitted that the Defendant published, and caused to be published, false and defamatory statements concerning the Plaintiff on several social media platforms, portraying him as a rapist, a habitual abuser of women, and a person of immoral character.

Counsel submitted that the natural and ordinary meaning of the publications was to expose the Plaintiff to public hatred, ridicule and contempt, that the publications were false, malicious and unsupported by any lawful justification, and that the Plaintiff had adduced sufficient oral and documentary evidence to establish each essential ingredient of the tort of defamation.

On the second issue, counsel submitted that, having established liability, the Plaintiff was entitled to the declaratory, injunctive and compensatory reliefs sought, and prayed that the Court award general and punitive damages, grant a permanent injunction, direct retraction and a public apology, and award interest and costs.

The Defendant's Submissions

Counsel for the Defendant submitted that the Plaintiff had not proved the essential ingredients of defamation on a balance of probabilities, that the Plaintiff failed to establish that the Defendant authored, published, or was otherwise responsible for the impugned publications, and that the evidence did not sufficiently demonstrate that the Plaintiff suffered any legally recognisable injury to his reputation. Counsel urged the Court to dismiss the suit with costs and, on the second issue, submitted that since liability had not been established there was no legal basis for granting any of the remedies sought.

The Plaintiff's Rejoinder

In rejoinder, counsel for the Plaintiff submitted that the Defendant was estopped from denying ownership and control of the social media account, that matter having been conclusively determined at scheduling, and that in any event the trial evidence independently established that the Defendant owned and controlled the account. Counsel further submitted that the Defendant's persistence in repeating the allegations, despite demand notices and the pendency of proceedings, demonstrated malice and aggravated the Plaintiff's injury, and urged the Court to allow the suit with costs.

Court's Findings

On the Law of Defamation

The Court held that defamation is the publication of a false statement concerning another which tends to lower that person in the estimation of right-thinking members of society, or exposes them to hatred, ridicule or contempt, citing Anup Singh Choudry v Tarajant Singh Padhaal & Sikh Association Uganda, Civil Suit No. 476 of 2022 [2025] UGHCCD 130, and Wasswa Matovu v Baryamureeba & 7 Others, Civil Suit No. 391 of 2012 (Consolidated) [2020] UGHCCD 104. It held that the burden of proof rests on the plaintiff throughout, under sections 101 to 103 of the Evidence Act, Cap. 8, and that a plaintiff must prove publication attributable to the defendant, reference to the plaintiff, defamatory meaning, and falsity unprotected by any lawful defence.

On Publication and Authorship

The Court found that the Defendant's Written Statement of Defence had not specifically pleaded that the account from which the publications emanated did not belong to her, and that her attempt to raise this at scheduling constituted an impermissible departure from her pleadings. It held, however, that this procedural finding did not by itself establish publication, and proceeded to examine the trial evidence independently.

The Court found that the Defendant, under cross-examination, admitted that the photographs appearing on the account were hers, that the name on the account was hers, and that she was the person shown in a video recording tendered by the Plaintiff.

It held that these admissions, taken together with the screenshots of the publications, the demand notice, the alleged mocking online response, and the preliminary police investigation report, constituted circumstantial evidence connecting the Defendant to the account. It found the Defendant's bare denial of authorship, unsupported by evidence of hacking, cloning or impersonation, was less probable than the Plaintiff's case, and concluded on a balance of probabilities that the publications were legally attributable to the Defendant.

On Falsity and Defamatory Meaning

The Court found that the publications falsely portrayed the Plaintiff as a rapist, a habitual abuser of women, and a person of immoral character. It noted that a defence witness called to support an allegation of sexual assault against the Plaintiff conceded under cross-examination that her testimony did not prove that the Plaintiff was a rapist, and that she had not read the impugned publications before testifying. The Court held that the Defendant had not established any lawful defence capable of justifying the publications, and answered the first issue in the affirmative.

On Remedies

Having found liability established, the Court held that the Plaintiff was entitled to a declaration that the publications were false and defamatory. Applying the principles in Jones v Pollard [1997] EMLR 233, it assessed general damages having regard to the gravity of the imputations, the extent of publication through social media, the Plaintiff's standing as an advocate, and the absence of any apology or retraction, awarding UGX 50,000,000.

Applying Rookes v Barnard [1964] AC 1129 and Cassell & Co Ltd v Broome [1972] AC 1027, the Court found that the Defendant's conduct, in publishing grave and false allegations and persisting in them after a formal demand, disclosed a conscious disregard of the Plaintiff's rights warranting exemplary damages, which it assessed at UGX 10,000,000.

The Court further held that the Plaintiff was entitled to a permanent injunction restraining the Defendant from publishing or causing publication of the impugned statements or statements of similar import, reasoning that the persistent and continuing nature of social media publication meant that damages alone would not afford complete relief. It also ordered the Defendant to publish an unequivocal retraction and public apology within fourteen days, remaining accessible for thirty consecutive days, together with interest on the damages awarded from the date of judgment under section 26 of the Civil Procedure Act, Cap. 282.

On Costs

Applying Premchand Raichand Ltd & Another v Quarry Services of East Africa Ltd & Others [1972] EA 162 and section 27(1) of the Civil Procedure Act, Cap. 71, the Court held that costs follow the event and found no exceptional circumstance justifying depriving the successful Plaintiff of costs.

Holding

The Court entered judgment in favour of the Plaintiff and made the following orders: a declaration that the publications made by the Defendant concerning the Plaintiff were false and defamatory; general damages of UGX 50,000,000; exemplary damages of UGX 10,000,000; a permanent injunction restraining the Defendant from publishing or causing publication of the impugned statements or statements of similar import; an order that the Defendant publish a retraction and public apology within fourteen days, remaining accessible for thirty consecutive days; interest on the general and exemplary damages at the prevailing court rate from the date of judgment until payment in full; and costs of the suit.

Read the full case

Carlton Douglas Kasirye v Sheena Ahumuza Bageine Alias Tasha (Civil Suit No 25 of 2020) 20.

Download • 10.54MB

Key takeaways

1. A defendant's admission of ownership of photographs, a name, or a video appearing on a social media account can form part of the circumstantial proof of authorship, even without direct forensic or platform evidence.

2. A denial of account ownership must be specifically pleaded; raising it for the first time at scheduling or trial risks being treated as an impermissible departure from the pleadings.

3. Persisting in defamatory publications, or failing to retract them, after receiving a demand notice will be treated as an aggravating factor supporting both general and exemplary damages.

4. Courts will grant a permanent injunction where defamatory material published on social media is capable of continued and indefinite circulation, since damages alone may not remedy an ongoing risk of republication.

I. Proof of Authorship Through Circumstantial Evidence

1. Courts may attribute a social media publication to a defendant without forensic extraction, IP logs, or platform records

2. Cumulative admissions (ownership of photos, account name, appearance in a video) can establish authorship

3. A bare denial of account ownership, unsupported by evidence of hacking, cloning, or impersonation, is weak — especially if not specifically pleaded

II. Permanence of Online Publication Justifies Stronger Remedies

1. Social media content is treated as indefinitely accessible and reshareable, unlike a one-off traditional media publication

2. This supports the grant of permanent injunctions and platform-matched retraction orders (published on the same platforms, for a fixed duration)

3. Persistence in publication after a demand notice is treated as an aggravating factor, supporting exemplary damages