[2019] KEHC 4117 (KLR)

[2019] KEHC 4117 (KLR)

The court found that while the defendants did publish the statements complained of, the plaintiff failed to prove on a balance of probabilities that the statements were defamatory. The evidence did not demonstrate that the plaintiff's reputation was lowered in the eyes of right-thinking members of society, nor was...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2019] KEHC 4117 (KLR)
Parties
Plaintiff: Ali Onamu Apidi; Defendant: Onesmus Mutinda; Defendant: Elvis Muluvi; Defendant: Jackson Nyumu; Defendant: Dominic Nzine; Defendant: Kang’oti Kathuvi; Defendant: Standard Limited
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Machakos
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Civil Suit 71 of 2005
Procedural Posture
Civil Suit / Judgment
Outcome
suit dismissed
Judges
BC Koech
Legal Topics
Defamation, Libel, Public Interest Defence, Burden of Proof, Damages Assessment
Source Language
en
Tort Law Defamation Libel Public Interest Defence Burden of Proof Damages Assessment

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ali Onamu Apidi

Plaintiff

Onesmus Mutinda

Defendant

Elvis Muluvi

Defendant

Jackson Nyumu

Defendant

Dominic Nzine

Defendant

Kang’oti Kathuvi

Defendant

Standard Limited

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Suit / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defendants published or caused the publication of defamatory statements against the plaintiff.
  2. 2 Whether the statements published were defamatory of the plaintiff.
  3. 3 Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the reliefs sought in the plaint.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that while the defendants did publish the statements complained of, the plaintiff failed to prove on a balance of probabilities that the statements were defamatory. The evidence did not demonstrate that the plaintiff's reputation was lowered in the eyes of right-thinking members of society, nor was there corroboration from colleagues or members of the Kitui community. The statements were made by public officials in the course of their oversight duties and were not shown to be reckless or malicious. The plaintiff, as a public officer, was expected to withstand public scrutiny and complaints. The court held that the statements constituted fair comment on matters of public...

Court Disposition

suit dismissed

Orders

  • The plaintiff's suit is dismissed with costs to the defendants.