[2001] KEHC 822 (KLR)

[2001] KEHC 822 (KLR)

The Court found that the publications by the defendants were defamatory of the plaintiff, an advocate, and were published with malice, as the defendants had been provided with the true facts prior to publication but proceeded regardless. The apologies issued were neither prompt nor sufficiently prominent to adequately vindicate the plaintiff. The Court held that damages in defamation are at large and must compensate for injury to reputation and feelings, taking into account the gravity of the allegations, the plaintiff's status, the wide circulation of the newspapers, and the defendants' conduct. The Court awarded Kshs 8 million as general damages, Kshs 2 million as aggravated damages,...

Citation
[2001] KEHC 822 (KLR)
Parties
Plaintiff: J P Machira; Defendant: Mwangi; Defendant: Nation Newspapers (Daily Nation, Taifa Leo)
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Judgment Date
7 September 2001
Case Number
Civil Case 1709 of 1996
Procedural Posture
Civil Case / Judgment on Assessment of Damages After Interlocutory Judgment for Plaintiff
Outcome
Judgment for the plaintiff on assessment of damages.
Legal Topics
Defamation, Libel, Assessment of Damages, Aggravated Damages, Apology in Defamation, Malice
Source Language
English
Tort Law Civil Procedure Defamation Libel Assessment of Damages Aggravated Damages Apology in Defamation Malice

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 5 Authorities cited 14 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

J P Machira

Plaintiff

Mwangi

Defendant

Nation Newspapers (Daily Nation, Taifa Leo)

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Case / Judgment on Assessment of Damages After Interlocutory Judgment for Plaintiff

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the publications by the defendants were defamatory of the plaintiff.
  2. 2 What is the appropriate measure of general and aggravated damages for the defamation committed.
  3. 3 Whether the apologies published by the defendants were adequate and their effect on damages.

Ratio Decidendi

The Court found that the publications by the defendants were defamatory of the plaintiff, an advocate, and were published with malice, as the defendants had been provided with the true facts prior to publication but proceeded regardless. The apologies issued were neither prompt nor sufficiently prominent to adequately vindicate the plaintiff. The Court held that damages in defamation are at large and must compensate for injury to reputation and feelings, taking into account the gravity of the allegations, the plaintiff's status, the wide circulation of the newspapers, and the defendants' conduct. The Court awarded Kshs 8 million as general damages, Kshs 2 million as aggravated damages,...

Court Disposition

Judgment for the plaintiff on assessment of damages.

Orders

  • The plaintiff is awarded Kshs 8,000,000 as general damages for defamation.
  • The plaintiff is awarded Kshs 2,000,000 as aggravated damages.