<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>James Abola Archives - Insider Bits News</title>
	<atom:link href="https://insiderbits.co.ke/tag/james-abola/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>https://insiderbits.co.ke/tag/james-abola/</link>
	<description>Stay Informed, Stay Ahead</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Mon, 22 Jun 2026 11:30:40 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en-US</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>
	hourly	</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>
	1	</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>https://wordpress.org/?v=7.0</generator>

 
	<item>
		<title>Man Wins Sh100m After “Shooting Over Skirt” Claims Shared Online</title>
		<link>https://insiderbits.co.ke/court/man-wins-sh100m-after-shooting-over-skirt-claims-shared-online/</link>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[IB Reporter]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 22 Jun 2026 11:30:40 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[Court]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Court Ruling]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Defamation Case]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[James Abola]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Legal News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Nicholas Jjengo]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Uganda High Court]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[URA WhatsApp group]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://insiderbits.co.ke/?p=4864</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[<p>A Ugandan man has been awarded UGX 100 million in damages after the High Court found that defamatory allegations accusing him of shooting another person over a “skirt” were circulated in a senior Uganda Revenue Authority (URA) WhatsApp group. The High Court Civil Division ruled that sharing the allegations among colleagues damaged the plaintiff’s reputation [&#8230;]</p>
<p>The post <a href="https://insiderbits.co.ke/court/man-wins-sh100m-after-shooting-over-skirt-claims-shared-online/">Man Wins Sh100m After “Shooting Over Skirt” Claims Shared Online</a> appeared first on <a href="https://insiderbits.co.ke">Insider Bits News</a>.</p>
]]></description>
										<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p data-start="91" data-end="337">A Ugandan man has been awarded UGX 100 million in damages after the High Court found that defamatory allegations accusing him of shooting another person over a “skirt” were circulated in a senior Uganda Revenue Authority (URA) WhatsApp group.</p>
<p data-start="339" data-end="626">The High Court Civil Division ruled that sharing the allegations among colleagues damaged the plaintiff’s reputation and that attempts to distance oneself by stating that the information was only an allegation or that investigations were ongoing could not shield a person from liability.</p>
<p data-start="628" data-end="758">The court found that defamatory content does not cease to be defamatory merely because it is presented as a report of accusations.</p>
<p data-start="760" data-end="964">In the judgment, the court held that statements such as “it is alleged” and references to ongoing investigations are not a complete defence where the publication exposes a person to reputational harm.</p>
<p data-start="966" data-end="1190">The dispute arose after messages were posted in a WhatsApp group comprising senior URA officials, where allegations were made linking the plaintiff to a shooting incident allegedly arising from a dispute involving a “skirt”.</p>
<p data-start="1192" data-end="1363">The plaintiff sued, arguing that the statements portrayed him as a person involved in criminal conduct and lowered his standing among colleagues and members of the public.</p>
<p data-start="1365" data-end="1508">The court agreed that the publication was defamatory, holding that repeating allegations made by another person can still amount to defamation.</p>
<p data-start="1510" data-end="1658">The judge noted that a person who republishes damaging claims cannot escape responsibility simply by saying they were repeating what they had heard.</p>
<p data-start="1660" data-end="1860">The ruling emphasised the need for caution when sharing unverified accusations, especially within professional forums where information can affect an individual’s reputation, career and relationships.</p>
<p data-start="1862" data-end="2023">The court further held that workplace or internal communication platforms, including WhatsApp groups, do not provide automatic protection from defamation claims.</p>
<p data-start="2025" data-end="2182">The decision serves as a warning that digital platforms can carry legal consequences when used to circulate statements that harm another person’s reputation.</p>
<p data-start="2184" data-end="2305" data-is-last-node="" data-is-only-node="">The High Court awarded the plaintiff UGX 100 million as compensation for the damage caused by the defamatory publication.</p>
<p>The post <a href="https://insiderbits.co.ke/court/man-wins-sh100m-after-shooting-over-skirt-claims-shared-online/">Man Wins Sh100m After “Shooting Over Skirt” Claims Shared Online</a> appeared first on <a href="https://insiderbits.co.ke">Insider Bits News</a>.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
					
		
		
			</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
