In her seven-page judgment dated 12th September, Justice Joyce Kavuma of the Civil Division of the High Court in Kampala ordered blogger Dean Lubowa Saava to immediately stop publishing any stuff about the person of Anna Muhairwe, the Deputy IGG about whom he has been reporting many controversial things while portraying her as dishonest, fraudulent, corrupt and unfit to hold public office.
Because he didn’t instruct any lawyer to represent him, Dean Lubowa was not able to turn up in court to defend himself and make his case while trying to justify the veracity of what he had been publishing on his Tik Tok and YouTube channels under the name TV10 Gano Mazima.
Through her lawyers ABS Advocates, Muhairwe initially filed Civil Suit No. 298 of 2025 under which she wants damages against Dean Lubowa whose utterances she says aren’t only untrue but are also malicious and meant to erode her dignity and reputation which her lawyers say is her personal property which can’t be restored once Dean Lubowa is permitted to keep putting out false and malicious content against her.
As the main suit, under which she is demanding several remedies including award of damages in hundreds of millions and permanent injunction against her tormentor, is being prepared for comprehensive hearing and inquiry, Muhairwe filed Miscellaneous Application No. 0289 of 2025 under which she demanded for a temporary injunction to be issued restraining Dean Lubowa from further potentially defamatory utterances.
The respondent Dean Lubowa was served with court summons but never bothered to file a defence or turn up in court, which left the Court with no option but to condemn him unheard. In her judgment, Justice Joyce Kavuma states that this refusal to file a defence replying to Muhairwe’s application implied admission of all the claims that had been made against him, on the part of Dean Lubowa. He didn’t appear in Court. Neither did he instruct any lawyer to represent him. This can have fatal consequences to the detriment of the party that opts to boycott and stay away from Court.
The Judge agreed with Muhairwe’s lawyers that the main suit discloses serious issues that merit to be determined at the trial, which is always a good ground for the grant of the temporary injunction in legal practice. The Court also agreed with the applicant’s argument that a person’s reputation is her property and it’s a form that is more valuable than any other property.
The Court also agreed with the applicant’s assertion that, if Dean Lubowa isn’t stopped from further publication of the impugned defamatory stuff, she might suffer injury which cannot be adequately compensated or atoned through the award of damages at the conclusion of the main suit, which the respondent will most likely lose.
It was also accepted by Court, in absence of contrary submission by Dean Lubowa, that Anna Muhairwe’s main suit stands high probability to succeed against the respondent. To shield the applicant from suffering irreparable damage arising from continued defamation, the Judge granted the temporary injunction as sought in order to prevent Dean Lubowa from continuing to discuss Muhairwe in his broadcasts. This prohibition remains the position until the main suit has been heard and concluded.
The Judge also explained that freedom of expression and speech, under which the likes of Dean Lubowa can claim to have a right to criticize public officials like Muhairwe, is never absolute in light of Article 43 of the Constitution.
This Constitutional provision on general limitation on enjoyment of fundamental and other human rights makes it clear that much as Ugandans have a right to freedom of speech/expression, that right can’t be exercised in a manner that prejudices and injures the reputational and dignity rights of other people.
The Court also recognized in its judgment that Muhairwe, like any other Ugandan, has a right not to be defamed or even dehumanized through defamatory broadcasts similar to those Dean Lubowa is alleged to have occasioned on his Tik Tok and YouTube platforms.
Justice Joyce Kavuma observed that Dean Lubowa had the opportunity to come to court and justify his utterances and make his case to why his acts shouldn’t be injuncted but he opted to stay away and didn’t come to Court even when he had been served and notified about Muihairwe’s application.
That Dean Lubowa had an opportunity to come and explain why he thinks his actions didn’t amount to violating Muhairwe’s reputation and dignity-related rights but opted to stay away as opposed to filing his own affidavit in reply, rebutting the application. To the Judge, it was clear there was a right which had been violated by Dean Lubowa who ought to have come to Court and make his case.
That Dean Lubowa ought to have come to Court to defend himself against claims that his utterances were not only untrue and defamatory but also portrayed Muhairwe (the applicant) as a corrupt, fraudulent dishonest person.
It’s well clarified in the judgment that Dean Lubowa, like any other Ugandan citizen can and should exercise his freedom of speech without injuring the rights, reputation and dignity of others. “Reputation is all a person has and once injured it would be very difficult to restore,” the Judge writes in part.
The judgment ends with a clear prohibition on Dean Lubowa never to publish or say anything again about Anna Muhairwe until the main suit, against which he is yet to file his defence, has conclusively been inquired into and conclusively determined.
That Dean Lubowa’s freedom of speech and expression (including making legitimate criticisms against public officials like Muhairwe) isn’t absolute as its exercise and enjoyment is subject to the rights of others and the broader public interest.
The broader implication, as his lawyers will or ought to explain to him, is that Dean Lubowa won’t be able to lawfully continue airing his anti-Muhairwe content without becoming liable for contempt of Court. Contempt of Court, as his lawyers ought to explain to him, is an offence that results into the offender, the contemnor, being sentenced to a jail term which means being locked up in Luzira or Kitalya prison.
But the opportunity to appeal remains available for Dean Lubowa to appeal against and challenge Justice Joyce Kavuma’s judgment granting temporary injunction, in case he feels the Court Judge was unfair to him. But initially opting to stay away, excluding himself, as opposed to coming to court in the first place, only complicates enjoyment of such appeal or judgment review rights for the aggrieved respondent.
Do you have a story in your community or an opinion to share with us: Email us at Submit an Article
