[2014] KECA 889 (KLR)

[2014] KECA 889 (KLR)

The Court of Appeal held that the words uttered by the appellant, although made within the car park of Parliament, were not made during parliamentary or committee proceedings and thus did not attract absolute privilege under the National Assembly (Powers & Privileges) Act. The utterances were directed at the respondent, were defamatory, and imputed involvement in a serious criminal act. The High Court's award of KES 3 million in general damages was found to be inordinately low given the respondent's standing and the gravity of the defamation; the award was increased to KES 5 million. The Court also found that the appellant's conduct was reckless, warranting aggravated damages of KES 4...

Citation
[2014] KECA 889 (KLR)
Parties
Appellant: Eric Gor Sungu; Respondent: George Odinga Oraro
Court
Court of Appeal
Court Station
Court of Appeal at Nairobi
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Judgment Date
31 January 2014
Case Number
Civil Appeal 226 of 2011
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Judgment on Appeal and Cross Appeal
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; cross-appeal allowed in part.
Legal Topics
Defamation, Parliamentary Privilege, Damages Assessment, Injunctions, Malice and Recklessness
Source Language
English
Tort Law Civil Procedure Defamation Parliamentary Privilege Damages Assessment Injunctions Malice and Recklessness

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 5 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Eric Gor Sungu

Appellant

George Odinga Oraro

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Judgment on Appeal and Cross Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the words uttered by the appellant were protected by absolute privilege under the National Assembly (Powers & Privileges) Act.
  2. 2 Whether the words referred to and defamed the respondent.
  3. 3 Whether the damages awarded by the High Court were appropriate and whether aggravated damages and a permanent injunction should issue.

Ratio Decidendi

The Court of Appeal held that the words uttered by the appellant, although made within the car park of Parliament, were not made during parliamentary or committee proceedings and thus did not attract absolute privilege under the National Assembly (Powers & Privileges) Act. The utterances were directed at the respondent, were defamatory, and imputed involvement in a serious criminal act. The High Court's award of KES 3 million in general damages was found to be inordinately low given the respondent's standing and the gravity of the defamation; the award was increased to KES 5 million. The Court also found that the appellant's conduct was reckless, warranting aggravated damages of KES 4...

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; cross-appeal allowed in part.

Orders

  • The High Court award of KES 3 million in general damages is set aside and substituted with KES 5 million.
  • Aggravated damages of KES 4 million are awarded to the respondent.