[2015] KEHC 4670 (KLR)

[2015] KEHC 4670 (KLR)

The court found that the appellant failed to prove publication of the alleged defamatory statements to third parties, as the only evidence of publication was to the respondent's wife, which is privileged communication. There was no evidence that the statements were made to other persons as alleged in the plaint. Furthermore, the plaint was defective for failing to provide particulars of the alleged defamation and for not setting out the words complained of in the original language as required by law. The court held that the essentials of the tort of defamation were not established and upheld the trial magistrate's dismissal of the claim.

Citation
[2015] KEHC 4670 (KLR)
Parties
Appellant: Jacinta Kasyoki; Respondent: Vincent Kaloki Aaron
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Kitui
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Judgment Date
23 April 2015
Case Number
Civil Case 21 of 2010
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Judgment
Outcome
appeal dismissed
Judges
BT Jaden
Legal Topics
Defamation, Publication Requirement, Privileged Communication, Pleadings Particularity
Source Language
English
Tort Law Defamation Publication Requirement Privileged Communication Pleadings Particularity

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 4 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Jacinta Kasyoki

Appellant

Vincent Kaloki Aaron

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the respondent published defamatory statements concerning the appellant to third parties.
  2. 2 Whether the words complained of were defamatory in character and published maliciously.
  3. 3 Whether the plaint contained sufficient particulars of the alleged defamation as required by law.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the appellant failed to prove publication of the alleged defamatory statements to third parties, as the only evidence of publication was to the respondent's wife, which is privileged communication. There was no evidence that the statements were made to other persons as alleged in the plaint. Furthermore, the plaint was defective for failing to provide particulars of the alleged defamation and for not setting out the words complained of in the original language as required by law. The court held that the essentials of the tort of defamation were not established and upheld the trial magistrate's dismissal of the claim.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed with costs to the respondent.