” LITIGATION ALERT (TORT) “
Background/Facts
The Plaintiff, Kebirungi Sally Sandra, and the Defendant, Sylvia Gladys Mireku, were classmates at Makerere University. The Defendant published statements on a Class WhatsApp group, which the Plaintiff claimed were defamatory.
The Plaintiff sued the Defendant for defamation and the Defendant did not file a defense or attend court, and the matter proceeded in the absence of the Defendant, (ex-parte).
Court found the Defendant liable for defamation.
The SM & Co. Litigation team analyses this case in line with what is internationally recognized as defamation and what qualifies to be a group or a build-up of right-thinking members of society. The Plaintiff, Kebirungi Sally Sandra, claimed;
1. That the defendant published defamatory statements about her on a WhatsApp group comprising of members of her graduating class.
2. That the defendant did this without any regard to her reputation and image.
3. That the defendant made libelous statements against her.
She also stated that she was a career public servant serving under the Ministry of Finance, Planning & Economic Development as a principal Economist and therefore has a reputation to protect.
She specifically stated that due to the Plaintiffs comments on the class WhatsApp group, she suffered mental anguish, shock, emotional distress and untold embarrassment before her own contemporaries.
The Decision
The Defendant did not put in her Defense to the defamation claim and the High Court after hearing the case for the Plaintiff held that the Defendant’s statements on the WhatsApp group were defamatory, as they were capable of lowering the Plaintiff’s image and self-esteem before her colleagues.
The court found that the words used by the Defendant were injurious to the Plaintiff and that the Defendant’s conduct was so reckless that she attacked the Plaintiff on a WhatsApp group without regard for her reputation.
The Court further emphasized the importance of responsible communication, particularly on social media platforms, and the potential consequences of defamatory statements.
Reasons for the decision
Defamatory statements
The court found that the Defendant’s statements on the WhatsApp group were defamatory, as they tended to lower the Plaintiff’s image and self- esteem before her colleagues.
For statement to be held as defamatory, the following must be proved;
a) The statements made must have been made by the Defendant.
b) The statement ought to be injurious to the plaintiff’s reputation in the eyes of the right- thinking members of society.
c) The statements published ought to have been false. Truth is therefore a defense in such cases.
d) If the plaintiff is a public figure or was involved in some newsworthy event or some other event that engaged the public interest, then the Defendant must have made the false statement intentionally or with reckless disregard of the plaintiff’s rights.
e) There are no applicable privileges or defenses.
The Court found that the actions of the defendant met this standard as such the said statements published were found to be defamatory.
Reckless behavior
The court held that the Defendant’s conduct was reckless, as she attacked the Plaintiff on a public platform without regard for her reputation.
The Plaintiff adduced evidence before court proving that the Defendant wrote a lengthy piece uttering false statements about the Plaintiff and posted the same on an alumni WhatsApp platform.
The Plaintiff further adduced evidence proving that even with the intervention of other group members, the Defendant went ahead with the malicious attack against the plaintiff’s repute.
These actions put together, amounted to reckless behavior on the side of the defendant.
Injury to reputation
For one to be defamed, one must have a reputation. Reputation can be defined as a wide spread belief that someone has a particular characteristic or a belief or opinion that is generally held about someone.
The court found that the Plaintiff’s reputation was injured by the Defendant’s statements, which had the potential to cause harm to her personal and professional life.
The Plaintiff is a career public servant serving under the Ministry of Finance, Planning & Economic Development as a principal Economist, thus confirming her stature in society.
The averments further point to this publication being made in a WhatsApp group with 54 of her contemporaries thus paving way for the formation of an adverse opinion or exposure to hatred, contempt or ridicule or injury to her in her trade, business, profession, calling, office or to cause her to be shunned by the other members of the alumni. The legal standard used to assess whether a statement is defamatory is Reputation is judged by a right thinking member of society. A right thinking member of society refers to an ordinary, reasonable person who generally upholds societal norms, respects the law, and holds conventional views about what’s good or bad, used to gauge if a statement harms someone’s reputation by lowering them in the eyes of such individuals. Do speak about right thinking members of society to show who qualifies as a judge of reputation.
Lack of justification
The Defendant failed to justify or defend her actions, leading the court to conclude that her behavior was unacceptable.
Exemplary damages
The court awarded exemplary damages to punish the Defendant for her reckless behavior and to deter others from engaging in similar conduct.
Exemplary damages are awarded as a form of punishment to penalize the defendant who has exhibited reprehensive behavior and to discourage others from behaving in a similar manner.
The Court found that the Defendant was reckless in her actions and as such the court found it fit to award exemplary and punitive damages to the plaintiff.
Practical take aways from the decisions for social media platform users
We take stock of notable take aways from this Judgement for users of similar social media interfaces.
Here are some practical takeaways from the decision for social media platform users:
Be mindful of one’s words
Before posting or sharing content on social media, we ought to consider the potential impact on others.
Defamatory statements can lead to serious consequences for not only the person against whom they are published, but also against
Think before you post
Social media platforms are fun and come with a push and excitement, but it is important to remember that they are public forums, and your words can be seen by a wide audience.
Think carefully before posting, especially if you’re discussing or criticizing others. The internet never forgets.
Respect others’ reputations
Reputations are built over time and in some cases over generations, generation that at times are the foundation of generational wealth thus, be respectful and considerate of others’ reputations online.
Avoid making false or damaging statements that could harm not only someone’s character or livelihood but also your own.
Society is now online
We live in an era where network can easily translate to net worth thus though social media platforms are powerful tools for communication, but they require responsible use. Be thoughtful and considerate in your online interactions.
By following these guidelines, you can help protect yourself and others from the potential consequences of defamatory statements online most especially during this Festive season where emotions of excitement ride high.
Conclusion
The decision highlights a critical element in defamation that is often ignored, many people run wild and free on social media without a thought to the digital footprint that they are making or leaving behind.
The decision is a wake-up call to the key board warriors but also a fresh amour to those who have long suffered at the mercy of key board warriors.
We live in a virtual era, how tidy is your digital foot print?
Disclaimer:
This publication is for general consumption and should not be taken and relied upon without seeking specific legal advice on any of the matters above.