High Court Rules Social Media Posts Are Copyrightable, Holds Monitor Publications and NTV Liable for Copyright Infringement and False Attribution, Awards UGX 185 Million in Damages

Byaruhanga Joshua Morris
6 days ago
5 min read

Updated: 6 days ago

SILVER KAYONDO v MONITOR PUBLICATIONS LIMITED AND OTHERS

Civil Suit No. 222 of 2024, High Court of Uganda at Kampala (Commercial Court Division). Before Hon. Lady Justice Dr. Ginamia Melody Ngwatu. Judgment delivered 27 July 2026.

Facts

The Plaintiff, an advocate specialising in corporate, commercial, and international finance law, maintained an active following on X, Facebook, and LinkedIn, through which he published commercial and legal commentary. On 10 August 2023, he posted a statement on lender-sovereign relations, including the line: “Lenders push values of their shareholders.”

The 4th Defendant, a journalist affiliated with Monitor Publications Limited (the 1st Defendant), used the Plaintiff’s post in an article on Uganda’s negotiations with the World Bank. The article quoted the Plaintiff as saying: “Lenders push value for their shareholders,” and attributed to him a further statement he had never made, concerning Uganda’s lack of choice but to adhere to World Bank terms. The 1st Defendant published the article in print and online, and Africa Broadcasting Uganda Limited, t/a NTV Uganda (the 2nd Defendant), syndicated the same content across its own platforms.

The Plaintiff sued jointly and severally for copyright infringement, false attribution, misrepresentation, negligence, defamation, misappropriation of personality, and unlawful processing of personal data. The Defendants denied liability, contending that the Plaintiff’s post was an unprotected idea, that the article acknowledged him as its source, and that the publication constituted fair use of material concerning a current economic topic.

LEGAL REPRESENTATION

For the Plaintiff: Mr. Sadam Solomon of M/s Aldaci Advocates.

Defendants: Mr. Bwayo Richard of M/s Nangwala Rezida & Co. Advocates.

Issues for Determination

1.Whether the defendants infringed the plaintiff’s alleged copyright?

2.Whether the defendants’ publication amounted to false attribution and misrepresentation of the plaintiff and his alleged copyright works?

3. Whether the defendants mutilated and falsely attributed to the plaintiff, comments and were thereby negligent?

4. Whether the defendants misappropriated and passed off the plaintiff’s personality rights?

5. Whether the defendants are liable for defamation of the plaintiff?

6. Whether the defendants unlawfully processed the plaintiff’s personal data?

7. What remedies are available to the parties?

Submissions of the Parties

The Plaintiff's Submissions

Counsel submitted that copyright subsists in any original work reduced to material form under section 3 of the Copyright and Neighbouring Rights Act, and that a social media post satisfies this test. Copying without consent infringes copyright even where the author is acknowledged, relying on Najjemba v MK Publishers.

On false attribution, counsel relied on Masson v New Yorker Magazine and Terry Gilliam v American Broadcasting Companies: altering a person’s words while crediting them as author misrepresents authorship where the meaning changes.

On negligence, counsel argued the 3rd defendant, as Managing Editor, owed and breached a duty to verify quoted material. Relying on Asege Winnie v Opportunity Bank, counsel argued the defendants used the plaintiff’s name and title to lend credibility and drive commercial interest without consent, and republished his personal data to a new audience without consent, contrary to the Data Protection and Privacy Act. Cap 97

Counsel sought declarations, a permanent injunction, general damages of Ugx 200,000,000, aggravated damages of Ugx 50,000,000, interest of 23% per annum, a retraction and apology, and costs, arguing each cause of action protects a distinct interest and warrants a separate award.

The Defendants' Submissions

The defendants argued no copyright subsisted because the post expressed an idea, not an original work, and that the article acknowledged the plaintiff as source and was fair use under section 14 of the Copyright and Neighbouring Rights Act given the current economic topic and the absence of any express prohibition on reproduction. They argued the publication was made in good faith and caused no harm.

Courts holding

On Copyright Infringement

The Court held that copyright protects the expression of an idea, not the idea itself, but that any work reduced to material form, including a social media post, ceases to be a mere opinion and becomes protectable expression.

On acknowledgement of authorship, the Court held, does not by itself defeat a claim of infringement. Applying section 14 of the Copyright and Neighbouring Rights Act, the Court found that inaccurate quotation which alters the meaning of a work to the detriment of the author’s reputation falls outside the fair use exception, regardless of whether the distortion was deliberate. The defence of fair use accordingly failed.

On False Attribution, Misrepresentation and Defamation

Relying on the persuasive authorities of Masson v. New Yorker Magazine 501 US 49 (1991) and Noah v. Shuba [1991] F.S.R. 14, the Court held that altering a person’s words while presenting them as a direct quotation misattributes authorship where the alteration changes the statement’s meaning. The Court found a material difference between the Plaintiff’s original statement and the version published, and found that the further statement attributed to him was never made.

On defamation, the Court held that the Defendants could not rely on the defence of qualified privilege, as the 3rd and 4th Defendants failed to verify the Plaintiff’s words or seek his consent prior to publication, falling short of the standard of good faith required to sustain the defence.

On Negligence, Personality Rights and Data Protection

The Court held that the 3rd Defendant, as Managing Editor, owed and breached a statutory duty of accuracy under Schedule 4 of the Press and Journalist Act, Cap. 100, resulting in reputational injury to the Plaintiff. Applying the three-part test in Asege Winnie v. Opportunity Bank (U) Ltd & Anor, the Court found the Plaintiff identifiable, the Defendants’ conduct deliberate, and the publication commercially motivated, sustaining the claim for misappropriation and passing off of personality.

The Court further found that the Plaintiff’s name, profession, and stated opinion constituted personal data, unlawfully processed and republished to an audience beyond his own followers without his consent, contrary to the Data Protection and Privacy Act, Cap. 97.

On Remedies

The Court held that each cause of action protects a distinct legal interest and warrants a separate award rather than one overlapping sum. It awarded the Plaintiff general damages of Ugx 165,000,000, apportioned across the causes of action, together with aggravated damages of Ugx 20,000,000, interest of 12% per annum on the general damages and 6% per annum on the aggravated damages from the date of judgment, a permanent injunction restraining further infringement, a published apology, an order for the 2nd Defendant to take down the infringing content, and costs of the suit.

Key Takeaways

1. Media houses and journalists must independently verify quoted material, even from public social media, as citing the author does not shield them from copyright or false attribution claims.

2. The fair use defense under the Copyright and Neighbouring Rights Act fails if any alteration to a quotation changes the original meaning and harms the author’s reputation.

3. Public figures and professionals retain enforceable personality and data protection rights over the commercial use of their identity and published statements.

4. Courts will award distinct damages for each cause of action in a single publication, increasing the total financial liability for publishers.

5. Social Media posts and works of digital content creators are copyrightable and protected under the law