[2013] KEHC 6559 (KLR)
The court found that the plaintiff's application for a temporary injunction was unopposed, with no response or submissions filed by the defendants. The plaintiff provided affidavit evidence and annexed documents demonstrating continued publication of allegedly defamatory material after the suit was filed and the...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2013] KEHC 6559 (KLR)
- Parties
- Plaintiff: Elvis Mutahi Githinji; Defendant: James Mutitu Mworia; Defendant: David Mworia; Defendant: Nation Media Group
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Civil Case 71 of 2012
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Case / Ruling on Interlocutory Injunction
- Outcome
- application for temporary injunction granted
- Judges
- DW Mbuteti
- Legal Topics
- Defamation, Interlocutory Injunctions, Irreparable Harm
- Source Language
- en
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Elvis Mutahi Githinji
Plaintiff
James Mutitu Mworia
Defendant
David Mworia
Defendant
Nation Media Group
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Civil Case / Ruling on Interlocutory Injunction
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a temporary injunction restraining the defendants from publishing further defamatory statements against him.
- 2 Whether the plaintiff has demonstrated a prima facie case with a likelihood of success and risk of irreparable harm.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the plaintiff's application for a temporary injunction was unopposed, with no response or submissions filed by the defendants. The plaintiff provided affidavit evidence and annexed documents demonstrating continued publication of allegedly defamatory material after the suit was filed and the defendants were served. The court was satisfied that the plaintiff had established a prima facie case and that there was a risk of irreparable harm to his reputation if the injunction was not granted. In the interests of justice, the court granted the temporary injunction restraining the defendants from further publishing defamatory statements against the plaintiff, with costs in...
Court Disposition
application for temporary injunction granted
Orders
- The defendants, especially the 1st and 2nd defendants, are restrained from further writing, printing, or publishing defamatory statements of the plaintiff in any media whatsoever, whether newspapers, internet, or any other media.
- Costs of the application shall be in the cause.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
26 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT NAIROBI
CIVIL DIVISION
CIVIL CASE NO. 71 OF 2012
ELVIS MUTAHI GITHINJI..........................…..….…...PLAINTIFF
VERSUS
JAMES MUTITU MWORIA
DAVID MWORIA
NATION MEDIA GROUP...........................…DEFENDANTS
R U L I N G
1. The application by notice of motion dated 21st May 2012 is between the Plaintiffs and the 1st and 2nd Defendant. The 3rd Defendant stated through its learned counsel that the application does not concern it.
2. The application seeks the main order that the Defendants,
“and especially the 1st and 2nd Defendants be restrained from further writing, printing or publishing defamatory statements of the Plaintiff in any media whatsoever whether newspapers, internet or any other media”.
3. The application is brought under Order 40, Rule 2 of the Civil Procedure Rules, 2010 (the Rules) upon the following grounds, inter alia, stated on the face thereof –
(i) That the Defendants have, despite being sued in this matter and being aware of the suit, “continued to circulate and repeat and publish the defamatory matters against him in e-mails to various persons”.
(ii) That the Plaintiff is justifiably apprehensive that unless restrained the Defendants “will continue to write, print and publish statements defamatory of (him)”.
(iii) That the Plaintiff stands to suffer “great prejudice and irreparable damage to his credit and reputation” unless the order sought is granted.
4. There is a supporting affidavit sworn by the Plaintiff. It sets out the factual basis for the application. There are various documents annexed to the affidavit.
5. I cannot find on the record any papers in response filed by any of the Defendants. As already noted the 3rd Defendant’s learned counsel stated on 10th December 2012 that the 3rd Defendant would not file any replying affidavit as the application does not concern it. But it clearly does; the temporary injunction is also sought against it.
6. The Plaintiff’s and the 1st and 2nd Defendant’s learned counsels agreed that the application be canvassed by way of written submissions. In the event only the Plaintiff filed submissions on 5th February 2013 after a 14-day extension on 18th January 2013. On 7th February 2013 when the matter came up for mention there was no appearance for the 1st and 2nd Defendants, and they had not filed submissions.
7. The application is thus unopposed. I have considered the allegations contained in the supporting affidavit, and I have seen the further publications annexed of the defamatory materials complained of after the suit was filed and the Defendants served. I have also considered the submissions of the learned counsels appearing.
8. I am satisfied that it is in the interests of justice to grant the temporary injunction sought. I will allow the application as prayed in prayer 1. Costs of the application shall be in the cause. Those will be the orders of the court.
DATED AND SIGNED AT NAIROBI THIS 16TH DAY OF AUGUST 2013
H. P. G. WAWERU
JUDGE
DELIVERED AT NAIROBI THIS 22ND DAY OF AUGUST 2013