[2025] KEHC 9126 (KLR)

[2025] KEHC 9126 (KLR)

The court found that the respondent's publication and broadcast of the appellant's photograph, associating him with judicial nominees rejected for integrity issues, was defamatory. The publication was widely disseminated and would likely lower the appellant's reputation in the eyes of reasonable members of society....

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2025] KEHC 9126 (KLR)
Parties
Appellant: Evans Keago Hezekiah; Respondent: The Standard Group Plc
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Machakos
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Judgment Date
19 June 2025
Case Number
Civil Appeal E261 of 2023
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Judgment
Outcome
Both appeals dismissed. Each party to bear their own costs.
Judges
RC Rutto
Legal Topics
Defamation, Libel, Damages Assessment, Media Law, Electronic Evidence, Apology and Retraction
Source Language
english
Tort Law Civil Procedure Defamation Libel Damages Assessment Media Law Electronic Evidence Apology and Retraction

Source-derived case record

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 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Evans Keago Hezekiah

Appellant

The Standard Group Plc

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the respondent's publication and broadcast of the appellant's photograph constituted defamation.
  2. 2 Whether the trial court erred in combining general and exemplary damages in its award.
  3. 3 Whether the appellant was required to call a character witness to prove defamation.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the respondent's publication and broadcast of the appellant's photograph, associating him with judicial nominees rejected for integrity issues, was defamatory. The publication was widely disseminated and would likely lower the appellant's reputation in the eyes of reasonable members of society. The court held that the appellant was not required to call a character witness, as defamation is actionable per se once the elements are proved. The electronic evidence was properly admitted, as the certificate of electronic evidence was filed with leave of court and not objected to by the respondent. The respondent's defences of fair comment and qualified privilege were...

Court Disposition

Both appeals dismissed. Each party to bear their own costs.

Orders

  • The appellant's appeal dated 6th October 2023 is dismissed.
  • The respondent's appeal dated 28th September 2023 is dismissed.