URA officer James AbolaThe High Court in Kampala has ordered a senior Uganda Revenue Authority (URA) officer to apologise and pay UGX 100 million in damages to a colleague over defamatory messages shared on a URA Senior Management WhatsApp group.In Civil Suit No. 0030 of 2023, Nicholas Jjengo sued fellow URA officer James Abola for publishing messages portraying him as a criminal wanted by police, a reckless gunman, a violent aggressor, and an adulterous, immoral person who shot at another man over a woman dismissively described as “a skirt”. Jjengo argued that the posts gravely damaged his reputation before his superiors, peers and the wider URA community.Abola, represented by M/s Amber Solicitors & Advocates, denied liability. He claimed he had received information about a serious firearm incident from ASP Patrick Lumumba Okello of the Staff Compliance Division and shared it in good faith, within a restricted URA senior management WhatsApp forum, in the course of duty and on an occasion of qualified privilege.He further argued that he used phrases such as “it is alleged” and “investigation is still ongoing”, and that Jjengo had not proved malice, falsity or actual reputational harm. Jjengo, represented by M/s Astral Advocates, maintained that the exact defamatory words, their date and platform of publication, their defamatory meanings, and the damage suffered had been clearly pleaded. His lawyers argued that the messages cast him as a criminal wanted by police, an irresponsible shooter and an adulterer, and that the publication—made to the highest management of URA—was especially damaging.They said Abola failed to verify the claims despite being in charge of staff investigations and having Jjengo’s contact, and that any privilege was defeated by malice and reckless disregard for the truth. In his judgment delivered on June 17, 2026, Hon. Justice Isaac Bonny Teko rejected a preliminary objection by the defence that the suit was premature, frivolous, vexatious and disclosed no cause of action.He held that the plaint properly pleaded a recognizable cause of action in libel, including the words complained of, their defamatory meaning, the Plaintiff’s reputation, the Defendant’s role and the alleged damage.The existence of a criminal complaint under the Computer Misuse Act or internal workplace processes, he ruled, did not bar a civil defamation claim. Justice Teko found that there was no dispute that Abola had published the impugned words to the URA Senior Management WhatsApp group, referring specifically to “Jjengo Nicholas” and identifying him as a Customs Officer.The first message stated that “UPF Kasangati is looking for a one Jjengo Nicholas a CUSTOMS OFFICER who shot 3 bullets at some victims last night,” which the judge said clearly imputed criminality and violence and would lower the Plaintiff in the estimation of right-thinking members of society. The second message went further, describing the “perpetrator” as having driven behind the victim’s car and shot at it near the victim’s gate in Magere, after a social outing where a “skirt” allegedly chose to ride in the victim’s car instead of the perpetrator’s.The judge held that, despite the use of “it is alleged” and reference to ongoing investigations, the overall communication portrayed Jjengo as a jealous, violent attacker, with the term “skirt” adding a moral and sexual innuendo that painted a married public officer as immoral, reckless and unfit for trust.While Justice Teko accepted that Abola was dealing with a matter of legitimate concern to URA senior management and that, in principle, the occasion attracted qualified privilege, he found that the privilege was defeated by malice.Abola’s failure to properly verify the allegations, his reckless language and the sensational moral overtones in the context of a privileged management platform, the judge held, satisfied the legal test for malice and reckless disregard for the truth.On damages, the defence had argued that Jjengo suffered no actual harm since he was neither disciplined nor demoted and was later confirmed or promoted as Supervisor, and that any award should be nominal. Justice Teko held that in libel, injury to reputation is presumed once defamatory publication is proved, though actual impact may affect the quantum.The limited audience and Jjengo’s subsequent career progression could mitigate but not erase the defamatory effect. Taking into account the gravity of the allegations—imputing criminality, violence, moral impropriety and professional unfitness—together with Jjengo’s long service and the senior-level audience, the Court awarded general damages of UGX 70,000,000.It declined a substantial separate award of exemplary damages but granted punitive damages of UGX 30,000,000 to mark the Court’s disapproval of Abola’s reckless use of a privileged management forum.The Court also ordered Abola to issue a written apology to Jjengo on the URA Senior Management WhatsApp group within 14 days, or, if the forum is no longer available, to circulate an equivalent written communication to the same audience.A permanent injunction was issued restraining him from further publishing the same or substantially similar defamatory allegations, save where any future publication is made lawfully, in good faith, upon proper verification and within his official mandate. The damages will attract interest at 8% per annum from the date of judgment until payment in full. Jjengo was also awarded the costs of the suit.The post Court Orders Senior URA Official to Apologise and Pay Shs100m Over Defamatory WhatsApp Posts appeared first on Business Focus.