[2011] KEHC 1537 (KLR)

[2011] KEHC 1537 (KLR)

The court found that the Defendant's utterance at the car park of the National Assembly was not protected by absolute privilege, as it was not made during formal parliamentary proceedings or in a report to the Assembly or Committee. The words, though generalized, were found to refer to the Plaintiff in the context of the ongoing public controversy and the Plaintiff's recent press conference. The evidence showed that reasonable persons acquainted with the circumstances would understand the words as referring to the Plaintiff. The Defendant did not prove the truth of the statements or that they were fair comment. The court held that the words were defamatory, damaging the Plaintiff's social...

Citation
[2011] KEHC 1537 (KLR)
Parties
Plaintiff: George Odinga Oraro; Defendant: Eric Gor Sunguh
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Judgment Date
14 July 2011
Case Number
Civil Case 1250 of 2004
Procedural Posture
Civil Case / Judgment
Outcome
Judgment for the Plaintiff.
Judges
KH Rawal
Legal Topics
Defamation, Libel, Slander, Parliamentary Privilege, Damages Assessment, Malicious Falsehood
Source Language
English
Tort Law Defamation Libel Slander Parliamentary Privilege Damages Assessment Malicious Falsehood

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 3 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

George Odinga Oraro

Plaintiff

Eric Gor Sunguh

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Case / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the words uttered by the Defendant referred to the Plaintiff and were defamatory of him.
  2. 2 Whether the Defendant's utterance was protected by absolute privilege under the National Assembly (Powers and Privileges) Act.
  3. 3 Whether the Plaintiff is entitled to damages for libel and slander.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the Defendant's utterance at the car park of the National Assembly was not protected by absolute privilege, as it was not made during formal parliamentary proceedings or in a report to the Assembly or Committee. The words, though generalized, were found to refer to the Plaintiff in the context of the ongoing public controversy and the Plaintiff's recent press conference. The evidence showed that reasonable persons acquainted with the circumstances would understand the words as referring to the Plaintiff. The Defendant did not prove the truth of the statements or that they were fair comment. The court held that the words were defamatory, damaging the Plaintiff's social...

Court Disposition

Judgment for the Plaintiff.

Orders

  • The Defendant shall pay the Plaintiff KES 3,000,000 in general damages for defamation.
  • The Defendant shall offer a suitable apology to the Plaintiff.