[2017] KEHC 3773 (KLR)

[2017] KEHC 3773 (KLR)

The court found that the article published by the defendant was defamatory of the plaintiff. The publication contained false statements that the plaintiff had duplicated smartcards and caused KWS to lose money, which were not substantiated by evidence. The defendant failed to verify the truthfulness of the allegations or contact the plaintiff for his side of the story, despite knowing him personally. The court held that malice could be inferred from this failure to inquire. The defences of qualified privilege and justification were not available to the defendant, as the article was not based on a privileged source and the defendant did not take reasonable steps to verify the allegations....

Citation
[2017] KEHC 3773 (KLR)
Parties
Plaintiff: Evans Arthur Mukolwe; Defendant: The Star
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Commercial Courts)
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Judgment Date
14 July 2017
Case Number
Civil Suit 181 of 2013
Procedural Posture
Civil Suit / Judgment
Outcome
Judgment for the plaintiff.
Judges
LM Njuguna
Legal Topics
Defamation, Libel, Malice in Publication, Qualified Privilege, Justification Defence, Damages Assessment
Source Language
English
Tort Law Defamation Libel Malice in Publication Qualified Privilege Justification Defence Damages Assessment

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 6 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Evans Arthur Mukolwe

Plaintiff

The Star

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Suit / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the article published by the defendant was defamatory of the plaintiff.
  2. 2 Whether the article was false and malicious.
  3. 3 Whether the article was published by the defendant and whether the words referred to the plaintiff.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the article published by the defendant was defamatory of the plaintiff. The publication contained false statements that the plaintiff had duplicated smartcards and caused KWS to lose money, which were not substantiated by evidence. The defendant failed to verify the truthfulness of the allegations or contact the plaintiff for his side of the story, despite knowing him personally. The court held that malice could be inferred from this failure to inquire. The defences of qualified privilege and justification were not available to the defendant, as the article was not based on a privileged source and the defendant did not take reasonable steps to verify the allegations....

Court Disposition

Judgment for the plaintiff.

Orders

  • The defendant shall pay the plaintiff Kshs. 2,000,000 as compensatory damages.
  • The defendant shall bear the costs of the suit.