URA’s James Abola
HABARI DAILY I Kampala, Uganda I With the award of Shs 100 million, Nicholas Jjengo, a junior Uganda Revenue Authority (URA) staff member, became an instant millionaire after winning what legal observers are describing as a landmark defamation case that sends a strong warning about the misuse of workplace communication platforms.
In a historic ruling delivered on June 17, 2026, the High Court in Kampala ordered a senior Uganda Revenue Authority (URA) official, James Abola, to pay Jjengo Shs 100 million in damages for defamatory statements circulated on a URA Senior Management WhatsApp group.
The judgment, delivered by Justice Isaac Bonny Teko, arose from a lawsuit filed by Jjengo, a tax auditor, against Abola, who at the time served as Assistant Commissioner for Staff Compliance.
At the heart of the dispute were messages posted by Abola on September 18, 2022, alleging that Jjengo was being sought by police in connection with a shooting incident.
One of the messages informed senior URA managers that “UPF Kasangati is looking for one Jjengo Nicholas, a CUSTOMS OFFICER who shot 3 bullets at some victims last night.”
A second message painted an even more damaging picture, claiming that Jjengo had pursued another vehicle and fired at its occupants after a woman allegedly refused to enter his car following a social outing.
Jjengo challenged the allegations, arguing that they were entirely false and had severely damaged his standing among supervisors, colleagues and the wider URA community. He told court that the messages portrayed him as a wanted criminal, a violent gunman, an immoral person and an adulterer.
Abola denied liability, maintaining that he had merely shared information received from ASP Patrick Lumumba Okello, an officer attached to the Staff Compliance Division. He further argued that his actions were protected by the legal doctrine of qualified privilege because the information concerned staff conduct and security matters. He also noted that the messages indicated the claims were still under investigation and had not been confirmed.
However, Justice Teko rejected those arguments, finding that the publications went far beyond a routine internal security alert.
“The natural and ordinary meaning of that message is that the Plaintiff was wanted by police for shooting at victims,” the judge ruled, adding that such an allegation carried a serious imputation of criminality and violence.
The court was particularly critical of the second message, which introduced details involving a woman and a shooting incident. Justice Teko observed that the use of the term “skirt” created a moral and sexual innuendo that portrayed Jjengo, a married public officer, as reckless, immoral and unworthy of trust.
While the court acknowledged that Abola had a legitimate duty to alert management about serious allegations involving staff members, it ruled that such responsibility did not extend to circulating unverified and sensational claims.
Justice Teko emphasized that qualified privilege protects responsible communication made in good faith, but does not shield individuals who act recklessly or show disregard for the truth.
Evidence presented before court showed that senior URA officials sought clarification from Jjengo after receiving the messages and were informed that the allegations were false. Despite this, there was no evidence that Abola took meaningful steps to verify the information before sharing it.
The judge also dismissed the defence that merely repeating allegations absolves a publisher from liability.
As a result, the court awarded Jjengo Shs 70 million in general damages and Shs 30 million in exemplary damages, bringing the total compensation to Shs 100 million. The award will attract interest at eight percent per annum until full payment.
In addition, Abola was ordered to issue a written apology within 14 days and publish it on the same URA Senior Management WhatsApp forum where the defamatory messages had been circulated. The court further issued a permanent injunction restraining him from making similar allegations against Jjengo unless they are properly verified, lawful and made in good faith within the scope of his official duties.
Jjengo was also awarded the costs of the suit, capping a legal victory that is likely to be remembered as a landmark judgment on accountability and responsible communication in the digital workplace.
