[2016] KEHC 4580 (KLR)

[2016] KEHC 4580 (KLR)

The court found that the plaintiff/applicant had demonstrated a prima facie case for the grant of an interlocutory injunction, as the defendants had posted material concerning the plaintiff on social media and failed to oppose the application or appear in court. The absence of opposition and the existence of potentially defamatory posts justified the continuation of the interim injunction to preserve the status quo pending the hearing and determination of the main suit. The court therefore confirmed the interim orders restraining the defendants, their agents, servants, or representatives from posting, commenting, or providing a platform for comments about the plaintiff on Facebook or any...

Citation
[2016] KEHC 4580 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: Cecil Miller; Respondent: Jackson Njeru; Respondent: Jackline Okuta
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Judgment Date
25 April 2016
Case Number
Civil Case 111 of 2016
Procedural Posture
Injunction Application / Interpartes Hearing of Interlocutory Injunction Application
Outcome
interlocutory injunction granted
Judges
RE Aburili
Legal Topics
Interlocutory Injunctions, Defamation, Social Media Publications
Source Language
English
Civil Procedure Tort Law Interlocutory Injunctions Defamation Social Media Publications

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Cecil Miller

Applicant

Jackson Njeru

Respondent

Jackline Okuta

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Injunction Application / Interpartes Hearing of Interlocutory Injunction Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the plaintiff is entitled to an interlocutory injunction restraining the defendants from posting or commenting about the plaintiff on social media platforms pending determination of the suit.
  2. 2 Whether the absence of opposition from the defendants justifies confirmation of the interim injunction.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the plaintiff/applicant had demonstrated a prima facie case for the grant of an interlocutory injunction, as the defendants had posted material concerning the plaintiff on social media and failed to oppose the application or appear in court. The absence of opposition and the existence of potentially defamatory posts justified the continuation of the interim injunction to preserve the status quo pending the hearing and determination of the main suit. The court therefore confirmed the interim orders restraining the defendants, their agents, servants, or representatives from posting, commenting, or providing a platform for comments about the plaintiff on Facebook or any...

Court Disposition

interlocutory injunction granted

Orders

  • An injunction is granted restraining the defendants, their agents, servants, or representatives from posting on Facebook or any other media platform, commenting, writing, or providing any platform for comments by the general public about the plaintiff/applicant pending the hearing and determination of the suit.
  • The plaintiff/applicant shall have costs of the application.