[2008] KEHC 1172 (KLR)

[2008] KEHC 1172 (KLR)

The court found that the defendant admitted to publishing the words complained of but failed to demonstrate that the publication was a fair and accurate report of the actual proceedings of the Parliamentary Select Committee. Upon examining the proceedings, the court determined that the specific defamatory words attributed to the plaintiff were not part of the official record. As such, the defence of qualified privilege did not apply. The court concluded that the defence disclosed no triable issue and that no useful purpose would be served by proceeding to trial. Consequently, the court allowed the plaintiff's application, struck out the defence, and entered interlocutory judgment for the...

Citation
[2008] KEHC 1172 (KLR)
Parties
Plaintiff: George Odinga Oraro; Defendant: The Standard Limited
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Judgment Date
25 July 2008
Case Number
Civil Case 221 of 2005
Procedural Posture
Civil Case / Ruling on Application to Strike Out Defence
Outcome
Plaintiff's application allowed; defence struck out; interlocutory judgment entered for plaintiff.
Judges
JL Osiemo
Legal Topics
Defamation, Libel, Qualified Privilege, Media Law
Source Language
English
Tort Law Defamation Libel Qualified Privilege Media Law

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 2 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

George Odinga Oraro

Plaintiff

The Standard Limited

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Case / Ruling on Application to Strike Out Defence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defendant's defence discloses any triable issue warranting a trial on the merits.
  2. 2 Whether the publication by the defendant was protected by qualified privilege under Section 7(1) of the Defamation Act.
  3. 3 Whether the words published were fair and accurate reports of parliamentary proceedings.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the defendant admitted to publishing the words complained of but failed to demonstrate that the publication was a fair and accurate report of the actual proceedings of the Parliamentary Select Committee. Upon examining the proceedings, the court determined that the specific defamatory words attributed to the plaintiff were not part of the official record. As such, the defence of qualified privilege did not apply. The court concluded that the defence disclosed no triable issue and that no useful purpose would be served by proceeding to trial. Consequently, the court allowed the plaintiff's application, struck out the defence, and entered interlocutory judgment for the...

Court Disposition

Plaintiff's application allowed; defence struck out; interlocutory judgment entered for plaintiff.

Orders

  • The defendant's defence is struck out.
  • Interlocutory judgment is entered for the plaintiff.