KABALE UNIVERSITY
FACULTY OF LAW
NAME: ATUAGBIRWE ANOLD
REG. NO: 2024/A/KBL/1118/F
COURSE UNIT: NATURE AND HISTORY OF TORTS
LECTURER: MS. MUSIIME LILLIBET MOIRA
Assignment question:
Sonia is a well-known local restaurant owner. At a dinner party, Daniel, a rival business owner,
loudly tells several guests that Sonia “cheats her suppliers and serves spoiled food to cut costs”.
The guests are all shocked, but no formal record is made of the statement. The next day, Daniel
posts on a community Facebook group that Sonia is “a fraud who endangers public health” and
includes a doctored photo of her kitchen, showing overflowing bins infested with rats and
cockroaches. The post is widely shared. As a result, Sonia loses several public contracts and a
local newspaper, having seen the Facebook post, publishes an article questioning her hygiene
standards. Sonia has come to you seeking advice.
Advise Sonia.
Brief facts:
Sonia’s rival, Daniel, loudly tells guests at a dinner party that she cheats her suppliers and serves
spoiled food. Daniel later posts on a Facebook group that Sonia is a fraud and also posts a
doctored photo of her kitchen. Sonia as a result loses several public contracts and a local
newspaper publishes an article questioning her hygiene standards.
Legal issues:
a) Whether there is defamation
b) What defenses are available
c) What remedies are available for Sonia
Resolution of issues
a) Whether there is defamation
For us to conclude whether the actions of Daniel and the events that follow amount to
defamation, we must first understand what defamation and its respective types and ingredients.
The tort of defamation simply means a statement whether written or oral that injures the third
party’s reputation. A defamatory statement is one which injures the reputation of another by
exposing him to hatred, contempt, or ridicule, or which tends to lower him in the esteem of right-
thinking members of society per Lord Atkin in the case of Sim v [Link] can as well
be defined by as the dissemination of words that tend to disgrace, injure the reputation, or
diminish the esteem others hold for a person2. It’s of two types; libel and slander. Libel implies
1
[1936] 2 ALL ER 1237-1240
2
Cambridge “Tort Law: A Modern Perspective” Chapter 16 on Defamation page 301
that the defamatory statements were written or any other similar medium while slander means
that the statements were made verbally. It is actionable per se.
To establish a prima facie case of defamation, four elements are generally required:
1. A false statement purporting to be fact concerning another person or entity;
2. Publication or communication of that statement to a third person; There is no defamation
unless the words are communicated to at least one person other than the plaintiff. The statement
must be intelligible to the recipient. There is no publication if it is in a foreign language which he
does not understand or if he is too deaf to hear it or too blind to read it, though in some case of
books, newspaper or broad casts it will be inferred that it was intelligible to the majority of
recipients as was held in the case of Huth vs Huth3.
3. Fault on the part of the person making the statement amounting to intent or at least negligence;
4. Some harm caused to the person or entity who is the subject of the statement. The harm here is
loss of several public contracts.
In the present case, Daniel makes loud utterances to the guests at a dinner party which passes the
test of a false statement made to a third party. Intention may arise on grounds of the fact that the
two, Daniel and Sonia, are business rivals. Owing to the fact that Sonia lost several public
contracts, this amounts to harm. The presence of these elements confirms defamation.
There are two types of defamation that arise as per the give facts i.e. slander and libel. Slander
arises when the defamatory statements are made verbally. One of the qualities for slander is that
the words falsely spoken of the party prejudice such a party in their profession or trade. It’s
3
[1915] 3 K.B 32
evident as per the facts that the statements made by Daniel affected Sonia in her business by
making her lose several public contracts.
The subsequent actions by Daniel where he posted defamatory statements on a community
Facebook group amount to defamation by libel. In order to found an action for libel, it must be
proved that the statement complained of is: false, in writing, defamatory and published. He goes
on to publish a doctored picture of Sonia’s kitchen portraying an unhygienic environment. This
amounted to publication.
It’s as a result of Daniel’s actions that the local newspaper picked up interest to run a story
questioning Sonia’s hygiene.
b) What defenses are available
Daniel and the local newspaper could tender in several defenses in respect to defamation. These
include;
1. Fair comment on a matter of public interest
The defense of fair comment is frequently relied upon by the press, as it is designed to protect
statements of opinion on matters of public concern. Lord Esher, in Merivale v Carson4 stated
that the test was: "Would any fair man, however prejudiced he may be, however exaggerated or
obstinate his views, have said that which this criticism has said of the work which is criticized?"
The defiance only applies to comments made on matters of public interest. The defense of fair
comment offers protection for the expression of opinions. The court does not need to agree with
the opinion; instead, it must determine “whether the views could honestly have been held by a
fair-minded person on facts known at the time.” As was determined in the case Reynolds v.
4
(1887) 20 QBD 275
Times Newspapers Ltd.5 The local newspaper can aver that it published the article in interest of
public health. The local newspaper can aver that it published the article about Sonia’s kitchen in
favor of public health.
The defense of fair comment must meet a certain test that was laid down in five conditions.
These ingredients of fair comment were quoted with approval by Lord Philip in Spiller and
another -vs- Joseph and others6. They include such conditions as; that the comment must be a
matter of public interest, that the comment must be recognizable as comment, as distinct from an
imputation of fact, that the comment must be one which could have been made by an honest
person, however prejudiced he might be, and however exaggerated or obstinate his view, that he
comment must be based on facts which are true or protected by privilege and that the comment
must explicitly or implicitly indicate, at least in general terms, what are the facts on which the
comment is being made and the reader or hearer should be in a position to judge for himself how
far the comment was well founded.
c) What remedies are available for Sonia
Sonia is entitled to several remedies which include:
Injunction: court may order for the published material to be restrained by injunction. This is for
the case of the newspaper article.
5
3 W.L.R. 1010, 1015–17 (H.L. 1999)
6
[2010] UKSC 53; 2009 EWCA Civ. 1075
Damages: Damages recoverable for a suit against libel and slander will depend of the nature and
gravity of the defamation that has been caused to the plaintiff. It also depends on the extent of
circulation of the defamatory material, the position in life of the parties and the nature/ situations
of the case. These can be special, general, aggravated or punitive in nature.
Joint action: A joint action for slander cannot be brought about jointly against several
defendants; separate action needs to be taken against all of them. In the case of verbal slander,
each person will be liable only for what he/she said. But an action for slander maybe bought
jointly against many defendants where the words spoken aren’t actionable per se. Sonia can
bring a separate action on Daniel and the local newspaper.
In conclusion, the actions of Daniel and the local newspaper amount to defamation and Sonia can
sue for the same tort in order to get the remedies aforementioned.
REFERENCES:
CAMBRIDGE “TORT LAW: A MODERN PERSPECTIVE,” by KETH N. HYLTON
CASE LAW