[2020] KEHC 3142 (KLR)

[2020] KEHC 3142 (KLR)

The court found that the respondent had pleaded the particulars of defamation as required by law. The appellant admitted authoring and publishing the impugned letter, which referred to the respondent and was sent to IPOA through the office of the DPP Kisumu. The content of the letter was found to depict the respondent as engaging in favoritism and being unable to lawfully procure justice except for members of his ethnic group. The court held that these statements would be understood by a reasonable person as defamatory. The appellant's justification for the statements was found to be unsubstantiated and unjustified. The trial court's finding of liability for defamation was upheld, and the...

Citation
[2020] KEHC 3142 (KLR)
Parties
Appellant: Daniel Kariuki; Respondent: D.N. Ogoti
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Kisumu
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Judgment Date
23 September 2020
Case Number
Civil Appeal 123 of 2018
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Judgment
Outcome
appeal dismissed
Judges
TW Cherere
Legal Topics
Defamation, Malicious Falsehood, Pleading Particulars, Damages for Defamation
Source Language
English
Tort Law Defamation Malicious Falsehood Pleading Particulars Damages for Defamation

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 4 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Daniel Kariuki

Appellant

D.N. Ogoti

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether particulars of defamation were pleaded as required by law.
  2. 2 Whether the impugned letter was published by the appellant.
  3. 3 Whether the impugned letter was defamatory of the respondent.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the respondent had pleaded the particulars of defamation as required by law. The appellant admitted authoring and publishing the impugned letter, which referred to the respondent and was sent to IPOA through the office of the DPP Kisumu. The content of the letter was found to depict the respondent as engaging in favoritism and being unable to lawfully procure justice except for members of his ethnic group. The court held that these statements would be understood by a reasonable person as defamatory. The appellant's justification for the statements was found to be unsubstantiated and unjustified. The trial court's finding of liability for defamation was upheld, and the...

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed with costs to the respondent.