The High Court in Jinja has awarded a magistrate Shs20 million in general damages after finding that his mother and brother defamed him by accusing him of forgery, fraud, theft and abuse of judicial office.
Justice Joanita Bushara, in a judgment dated September 1, 2026, also ordered the two defendants to pay interest on the award at the court rate of six per cent per annum from the date of judgment until payment in full, as well as the costs of the suit.
The case was filed by Steven Johnson Waidhuuba, a magistrate in the Judiciary of Uganda, against his biological mother, Lovisa Ayazika, and his brother, Balondemu Andrew.
The dispute arose from a family disagreement over the estate of Waidhuuba’s late father, particularly land in Kasolo, Bwanalira Village, Iganga District.
According to the judgment, the defendants accused Waidhuuba of forging powers of attorney and his late father’s will in an attempt to take control of family property and a bank account.
The allegations were communicated through letters to the Judicial Service Commission (JSC), the Directorate of Criminal Investigations (CID), local authorities, family members and online platforms.
Justice Bushara found that the allegations were defamatory, saying they directly attacked Waidhuuba’s integrity as a judicial officer.
“The statements in question, as contained in the letters and online publications, are replete with accusations that impute criminal conduct and professional misconduct,” Justice Bushara ruled.
The judge cited an April 19, 2022 letter written by Waidhuuba’s mother to the JSC, in which she accused him of producing a forged power of attorney, taking control of his father’s bank account and withdrawing pension money for his personal use instead of paying his father’s medical bills.
She also accused him of threatening to have family members imprisoned and using his position as a judicial officer to intimidate and harass them.
In a separate letter to the JSC, Waidhuuba’s brother allegedly accused him of using his judicial office to have family members arrested and concoct charges against them in an attempt to take control of family land and property.
The brother also allegedly wrote to the Director of CID, accusing the magistrate of fraudulently preparing powers of attorney to take over the family’s six acres of land.
The allegations later appeared online, including in a Daily Monitor article published on July 16, 2024, under the headline, “Magistrate accused by mother of forging will.”
The court also considered WhatsApp messages in which the magistrate was allegedly portrayed as having been ordered to refund his late father’s money, as well as a video clip ridiculing him at a police station.
Justice Bushara said the allegations had gone beyond the confines of a family dispute after being circulated among people within the Judiciary and the wider community.
“The plain, ordinary, and natural meaning of the accusations made across the letters, WhatsApp forums and the online media print of the Daily Monitor impute severe moral turpitude and criminal liability,” the judge said.
She added: “Charging a sitting Magistrate with forging a Will, stealing a pension, and abusing his judicial powers to terrorize citizens directly strikes at his professional core of integrity, qualification, and fitness for office.”
The court heard evidence from Jackson Wakayinja, who testified that while at the Judiciary headquarters in Kampala in 2022, he overheard registry staff discussing allegations that Waidhuuba had forged documents and was involved in a property dispute.
Another witness, Daudi Ruth Waidhuuba Isendabaguzi Mpamuleyi, head of the Abaise Muluuta clan and the magistrate’s paternal uncle, told the court that during family mediation meetings, the second defendant had threatened to write to Waidhuuba’s superiors to tarnish his reputation and cause him to lose his job.
Justice Bushara found that the defendants had failed to prove that the allegations were true. She also rejected any protection they might have claimed under qualified privilege.
“The protection is not absolute,” she said, explaining that a complaint made to a public authority may lose the protection of qualified privilege if it is motivated by malice.
The judge found that the defendants’ actions amounted to a continuing course of publication involving public authorities, family members, electronic forums and online media.
“The publications went beyond merely requesting an investigation into an alleged wrongdoing. They portrayed the plaintiff as a criminal, fraudster and dishonest judicial officer,” Justice Bushara ruled.
The court noted that the JSC eventually cleared Waidhuuba of the allegations. However, the judge said the online circulation of the claims meant that the reputational damage could remain widespread.
Although Waidhuuba sought damages for the harm caused to his reputation, Justice Bushara said his position as a judicial officer made the allegations particularly serious.
“The Plaintiff in the present case is not an ordinary private individual. He is a Magistrate of the Judiciary of Uganda. His professional reputation is founded substantially upon public confidence in his integrity and honesty,” she said.
The court consequently awarded Waidhuuba Shs20 million in general damages, with interest at six per cent per annum from September 1, 2026, until full payment.
Justice Bushara also issued a permanent injunction restraining the defendants, their agents or anyone acting on their behalf from republishing the defamatory allegations or substantially similar claims against the magistrate.
The judge, however, clarified that the injunction does not prevent the defendants from making a genuine complaint to a competent authority where they have a legitimate interest, provided the complaint is made lawfully, responsibly and without malice.
The defendants were also ordered to issue Waidhuuba with a written retraction and apology and, where reasonably practicable, communicate the apology through the same principal channels through which the defamatory allegations had been disseminated.
They were further ordered to jointly and severally pay the costs of the suit.
