https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/6912

Baitul Hikivia International Integrated Group of Schools Limited v Milo (Civil Case E196 of 2025) [2026] KEHC 6912 (KLR) (Civ) (22 May 2026) (Ruling) Neutral citation: [2026] KEHC 6912 (KLR) Republic of Kenya In the High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts) Civil Civil Case E196 of 2025 JN Mulwa, J May 22, 2026 Between Baitul Hikivia International Integrated Group Of Schools Limited Plaintiff and Patrick Milo Defendant Ruling 1.For determination is the Plaintiff’s (hereinafter the Applicant) motion dated 25/07/2025 seeking orders against the Defendant (hereinafter the Respondent), a disgranted former employee inter alia;-1.spent2.That pending the inter-parties hearing of this application, this Honourable Court be pleased to issue a temporary injunction restraining the Defendant/Respondent by themselves or through its agents, servants, employees and/or assignees and or any person acting on their instruction from:i.Publishing, posting, sharing, distributing or causing to be published or shared any defamatory, malicious, false, or scandalous remarks or content concerning the Plaintiff/Applicant, Baitul Hikma International Integrated Group Of Schools Limited and it’s Directors; and from repeating any publication of, any innuendos, insinuations, allegations or statements made in the letter dated 14"" July, 2025 and 17th July, 2025 purportedly from an unqualified Advocate one Mr. Gerald Alwanda Omollo.ii.Disseminating or circulating such remarks and or any innuendos, insinuations, allegations or statements made in the letter dated 14th July, 2025 and 17 July, 2025 concerning the Plaintiff Applicant, Baitul Hikma International Integrated Group Of Schools Limited and its directors, purportedly from an unqualified Advocate one Mr. Gerald Alwanda Omollo via social media platforms, including but not limited to Facebook, Twitter (), Instagram WhatsApp, TikTok blogs, and any other online forums or digital platforms.iii.Making any direct or indirect defamatory or threatening Communication to parents. Guardians or associates of pupils enrolled in the Plaintiff/Applicant's institution in relation to any Letter dated 14th July, 2025 and 17th July., 2025 purportedly from an unqualified Advocate one Mr Gerald Alwada Omollo and Concerning the Plaintiff/Applicant, Baitul Hikma International Integrated Group Of Schools Limited and its directors.iv.Making statements to or through mainstream media outlets, whether print, television, radio or online publications in relation to any Innuendos, insinuations, allegations or statements made ín the letter dated 14 th July, 2025, and 17th July. 2025 purportedly from qualified advocate one Mr. Gerald Alwanda Omollo to the applicants.3.That pending the hearing and determination of the Suit herein, this Honourable Court be pleased to issue a temporary injunction restraining Defendant/Respondent by themselves or through its agents, servants, employees and/or assignee and or any other person acting on their instruction from;i.Publishing, posting, sharing, distributing or causing to be published or shared any defamatory. malicious, false, or scandalous remarks or content concerning the Plaintiff/Applicant, Baitul Hikma International Integrated Group Of Schools Limited and its directors and from repeating any publication of, any innuendos, insinuations, allegations or statements made in the Letter dated 14th July, 2025 and 17th July 2025 purportedly from an unqualified Advocate one Mr. Gerald Alwanda Omollo.ii.Disseminating or circulating such remarks and or any innuendos, insinuations, allegations or statements made in the Letter dated 14th July 2025 and 17th July, 2025 concerning the Plaintiff/Applicant Baitul Hikma International Integrated Group Of Schools Limited and its directors, purportedly from an un qualified Advocate one Mr. Gerald Alwanda Omollo via social media platforms, including but not limited to Facebook, Twitter (X), Instagram. WhatsApp, TikTok, blogs, and any other online forums or digital platforms;iii.Making any direct or indirect defamatory or threatening communication to parents, guardians or associates of pupil enrolled in the Plaintiff/Applicant's institution in relation to any Innuendos, insinuations allegations or statements made in the Letter dated 14th July, 2025 and 17th July, 2025 purportedly from an unqualified Advocate one Mr. Gerald Alwanda Omollo and concerning the Plaintiff/Applicant, Baitul Hikma International Integrated Group Of Schools.iv.Making statements to or through mainstream media outlets, whether print, television, radio or online publications in relation to any innuendos, insinuations, allegations or statements made in the Letter dated 14th July, 2025 and 17th July, 2025 purportedly from an unqualified Advocate one Mr. Gerald Alwanda Omollo concerning the Plaintiff/Applicant, Baitul Hikma International Integrated Group Of Schools Limited, and its directors.4.That this Honorable Court do issue furthest of other orders that in its discretion may deem just and expedient in the circumstances of this case.5.The costs hereof be in the cause. 2.The motion is predicated upon Article 10, 23, 25 C, 27, 33, 34 and Sections 1A, 1B 63(e) and 3A of the Civil Procedure Act; and grounds found on its face and supporting affidavit sworn on 25/04/2025 by its director, Ismail Harun Mohamed. 3.The Applicant’s claim is that the Defendant/Respondent was a former employee of the Applicant, that through his advocates (purportedly unqualified) Gerald Alwanda Omollo by letter dated 18/07/2025 that contains malicious defamatory and libelous content directed to the applicant its directors and their families, among them, threats to deal with the Applicant mercilessly. 4.Further and in particular, the Applicant posits that the Respondent by its letter dated 17/07/2025 violated its reputation by stating therein that by its letter, the whole world would know where the funds come from to pay a private employee, which his rebuttal will be swift and merciless, and was going to be messy. 5.The Applicant states the said threats, insinuations, allegations and false statements by other letters have been published via social media including but not limited to Facebook Twitter (X) Instagram, WhatsApp, Tiktok, blogs among others, that the defamatory communication have also been published in mainstream media outlets, television, print radio via letters dated 14/07/2025 17/07/2028, all made by the Respondent contain malicious, defamatory and libelous content and are baseless threats. 6.The depones that it has lodged criminal proceedings against the Respondent via OB No. 27/17/07/2025 concerning the impersonation of an Advocate at Gilgil Police station which, upon investigations, the fake Advocate Mr. Okatch George Owino was struck out of the Roll of Advocates, and the law firm of Okach & Co. Advocates found not registered under the business registration service. 7.It is for the above reasons that the Applicant seeks the orders in the in the instant motion, as continued publication of the defamatory statements would cause irreparable reputational damage, significant financial loss and obstruction of justice, amounting to gross violation and abuse to freedom of expression, protected at Article 33 (1) of the Constitution and 33 (3) thereof. 8.In opposition to the motion, the Respondent filed a Replying Affidavit he swore on 20/01/2025 as well as grounds of opposition dated 20/09/2025 in which he terms the application as vexation, frivolous, bad in law, false and waste of courts time, that the Respondent’s publications disclose true and factual issues, and that the Kenyan constitution grants freedom of expression. 9.Additionally, in his replying Affidavit, the Respondent denies the allegations against him that he has embarked on a coordinated unlawful and malicious campaign to extort threaten and blackmail the applicant and its directors and calls for strict proof of the allegations; that no defamation has been established nor has falsity been established to justify grant of the injunctive orders as sought. 10.The parties were directed to file written submissions, which they complied with. Applicant’s Submissions. 11.In its submissions dated 12/02/2026, the Applicant submits that by the confirmed unqualified Advocate letter of 17/07/2025, the Respondent clearly intends to disseminate to the “whole world” defamatory material against the Applicant, which would injure the institution's reputation, which would cause immense and irreparable financial and reputational loss. 12.The only issue the Applicant has flagged for determination is whether the Applicant meets the threshold for grant of a temporary order of injunction against the Respondent pending hearing and determination of the case, citing the celebrated cases of Giella v. Cassman Brown Ltd v. Jan Bonde Nielsen & 2 Others (A No. 77 of 2012(2014) eKLR. Respondent’s submissions 13.On the Respondent’s part, its submissions are dated 15/01/2026 (stated as opposing the application dated 31/08/2025) and flags two issues; whatever the application has merit, and which party ought to meet costs thereof. 14.It is the Respondent’s contention that the Application does not demonstrate a prima facie case as held in Mrao Ltd v. First American Bank of Kenya Ltd & 2 Others [2003] eKLR; and that no irreparable loss has been demonstrated that cannot be adequately compensated by an award of damages. Analysis and Determination 15.From the foregoing and upon careful consideration of the parties affidavit material and submissions, the court postulates two issues for determination:-i.Whether the Application meets the threshold for grant of a temporary order of injunction against the Respondentii.Who should bear costs of the application 16.It is a well-trodden road from which the superior courts have pronounced and set out principles that underpin the issue at hand. In particular, the courts in the Giella v. Cassman Brown and Nguruman Limited (supra) set out three fundamental principles for grant of temporary injunctive orders, and restated in the case of Cheserem v. Immediate Media Services [2000] 2EA 371 among others, that an Applicant must establish;-a.A prima facie case with probability of successb.Irreparable loss to the Applicant if order not grantedc.Balance of convenience. Prima Facie Case 17.The court of appeal in Nguruman Limited (supra) restated the principles governing grant of interlocutory injunctions as enunciated in Giella case and observed that the role of the Judge dealing with a similar application for interlocutory injunction is merely to consider whether the application has been brought within the said principles; adding that the three (3) principles and conditions apply separately, as distinct and logical hurdles to be surmounted sequentially; 18.That is to say that the Applicant who establishes a prima facie case must further establish irreparable injury, for which damages cannot be an adequate remedy; and where the court is in doubt as to the adequacy of damages in compensation, the court will consider the balance of convenience. 19.That said, the court continued to say that where no prima facie case is established, the court need not investigate the question of irreparable loss or balance of convenience. See also Simon Waithaka Kabu v. Sarah Njoki Nyaga [2025] eKLR. 20.The Respondent does not deny publishing the impugned articles in is replying affidavit, however states that his publications against the Applicant were factual, and would let the whole world know the whole truth, as grounded on verifiable facts arising from his employment and or dealings with the Applicant; further raising a plea of justification. In the same breath, he posits that he did not have knowledge as to his advocate’s disqualifications to act as an Advocate. 21.Additionally, while arguing that the contents of his letter dated 14/07/2025 and 17/07/2025 were not defamatory of the Applicant, he contends that they are true and factual with overwhelming evidence. 22.With the above in reserve, and these being interlocutory proceedings, and while the Applicant assails the falsity of the publications asserting that they were intended to disparage, bring into disrepute and injure the Applicant’s business, exfacie the publications tend to impute the Applicant’ reputation and honesty in dealings in the institution. 23.Article 33 of the Constitution does not shield or put a party whose publications are actuated by malice with intent to injure the opposite party, in this case, in its businesses and personal repute of the directors of the institution.Lord Denning MR in the case of Fraser V. Evans & Other observed thus;“Until it is clear that an alleged libel is untrue, it is not clear that any rights at all have been infringed, and the importance of leaving free speech unfettered is a strong reason incase, of libel for dealing most cautiously and warily with the granting of interim injunction” 24.The antagonist party's evidence will no doubt be tested at the trial of the suit. In the case of Phineas Nyagah v. Gilbert Imanyara[2013] eKLR the court rendered thus:-“Make have does not necessarily mean spite or ill will, but the recklessness itself may be evidence of malice. Evidence of malice may be found in the publication itself if the language used is utterly beyond or, disproportionate to the facts”. 25.While the court is alive and duty bound to champion the competing rights in Article 33 that guarantees freedom of expression, Article 25 and 31 protect the inherent dignity of every person and the right to privacy.For the foregoing, the court is satisfied that the Applicant has established a prima facie case with chances of success. Irreparable Loss 26.Irreparable loss is defined as loss or damage that may not be adequately compensated by an award of damages. The court of Appeal in Nation Media Group & 2 Others v. John Harun Mwau[2014] eKLR held that an interlocutory mandatory injunction to be issued, an applicant must demonstrate existence of special circumstances on a higher than in prohibitory injunction is granted; and that a temporary injunction can only be granted in exceptional and clearest of cases. 27.There can be no doubt that the impugned publication and threats to the Applicant by its former employee, the Respondent must have caused it immense mental anguish. It is an international educational institution, which relies on its reputation to draw students to the school. Clearly, when the Respondent threatened the institution to open a “ can of worms and the whole world will know where the funds come from”, the innuendo therefrom cannot be mistaken, to any ordinary member of the society. 28.Further, the Respondent’s threat to the Applicant and its directors that “our rebuttal will be swift and merciless” obviously must have caused fear and anxiety to the directors of the school, the student population, the parents, and those associated with the institution. Lest I am accused of delving into the merits or otherwise of the substantive case, I should say no more in this regard.The court is persuaded that the Applicant has demonstrated irreparable loss should the temporary injunctive orders are denied. Balance of convenience 29.The court is acutely aware that freedom of expression is anchored at Article 33 and 34 of the 2010 constitution. However, these freedoms are not absolute; they are limited as held in the case of Mrao Ltd. V. First American Bank of Kenya & 2 Others [2003] KLR. 30.Additionally Article 17 and 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights protects every person from unlawful attacks on their honour and reputation. The Applicant’s reputation and character ought to be protected in the interim, pending hearing and determination of the case on its merit.For the foregoing, the balance of convenience tilts in favour of the Applicant. Conclusion 31.The court finds it necessary to intervene to protect the Applicant’s honour and repute and from further malalignment and injury pending hearing and determination of the case. 32.Consequently, the Application dated 25/07/20225 is granted in terms of prayers 2 and 3. Costs of the application shall abide by the outcome of the suit.Orders accordingly. DELIVERED, DATED AND SIGNED AT NAIROBI THIS 21ST DAY OF MAY 2026.……………………JANET MULWA.JUDGE