03/02/2020 Muwema -v- Facebook Ireland Ltd [2016] IEHC 519 (23 August 2016) (iv) An order directing the defendant to provide the plaintiff with any details which it holds relating to the identities and location of the person or persons who operate the Tom Voltaire Okwalinga Facebook page or the individual posters thereon i.e. “Norwich Pharmacal “ order. 2. The plaintiff is a Ugandan lawyer and a partner in the Ugandan firm of Muwema & Co., Advocates and Solicitors. In his affidavit grounding the application herein, he avers that his firm is a “high profile and prestigious” law firm, which over the years has been involved in a series of landmark cases in Uganda. He says his firm specialises in the areas of Intellectual Property and Anti-Counterfeit Law 3. The plaintiff takes issue with what he describes in his grounding affidavit as three “highly offensive and defamatory publications” that have been posted on the defendant’s site, by a person identified only by the pseudonym TVO. 4. The defendant is the operator of the “Facebook” social media site for users residing outside of the United States and Canada. The offending articles were posted between 17th March 2016 - 24th March 2016. 5. By way of letter dated 22nd March 2016, the plaintiff wrote to the defendant seeking the removal of the Reported Content from its site and also sought disclosure of the IP address of TVO. Following this letter, correspondence was exchanged between the parties. On 31st March 2016 White & Case LLP, representing the defendant, wrote to the plaintiff stating that the defendant was unable to comply with the plaintiff’s request to remove the Reported Content stating : “To the extent you claim that any content on the Facebook service is defamatory in nature, your complaint should be addressed to the user who created and posted the content, not Facebook. Moreover, Facebook is not in a position to evaluate the truth or falsity of such content and will not remove or block it absent proper service of a valid court order identifying the specific content deemed to be defamatory.” 6. The plaintiff subsequently engaged Messrs. Lavelle, Solicitors, who on 19th April 2016 wrote to the defendants again calling on the defendant to remove the offending content. Messrs. Lavelle stated that the defendant was violating its own Statement of Rights and Responsibilities and highlighted that the plaintiff continued to suffer loss and damage. Following a further letter dated 4th May 2016, the defendant sent an email to the plaintiff’s solicitors on 9th May 2016, stating that the Reported Content was no longer accessible in Uganda. However, it subsequently transpired that this was not the case. The Reported Content : Plaintiff’s Grounding Affidavit 7. In his grounding affidavit of 23rd May 2016, the plaintiff avers that the first publication complained of was posted on the TVO page on 17th March, 2016 and bore the title “Betrayal in the City.” The second article to appear was entitled “Scandal Lawyer Fred Muwema, is now guarded by Special Forces Command Operatives who follow him everywhere and are dressed in civilian clothes, and armed with revolvers” and appeared on the TVO page on 19th March 2016. A third article entitled “Muwema is a joke of a lawyer” was posted on the TVO page on 24th March 2016. The above posts were updated and edited on 18th March, 22nd March and 24th March 2016. The plaintiff argues that the articles are false, scurrilous and defamatory of him and submits that the articles assert that: 1. That the plaintiff has accepted bribes in the amount of US$ 260,000; 2. That the plaintiff staged a break in into the premises of his own law firm in order to jeopardise a presidential election and petition; 3. That the plaintiff is now constantly guarded by armed forces 8. The plaintiff avers that since these articles were published on the Facebook page of TVO, there have been an indeterminate number of subsequent comments and posts, which have “condemned, ridiculed and threatened both myself and my firm as well as endangering my safety, reputation and credit.” 9. The plaintiff in his grounding affidavit highlights the gravity of the TVO allegations, particularly having regard to his professional standing as a lawyer and emphasising that taking a bribe is contrary to the disciplinary code of his profession. He also highlights the fact that destroying evidence or obstructing the course of judicial proceedings, are offences that are punishable by seven years imprisonment in Uganda. The plaintiff avers that the Reported Content impinges on his standing and www.bailii.org/ie/cases/IEHC/2016/H519.html 2/15