[2002] KEHC 1146 (KLR)

[2002] KEHC 1146 (KLR)

The court found that the article published by the defendants was defamatory of the plaintiff, imputing corruption, breach of protocol, and dishonesty in public office. The natural and ordinary meaning of the words, as well as their innuendo, was to lower the plaintiff's reputation in the eyes of right-thinking members of society. The defendants failed to apologize or retract the statements, persisted in defending the libel even after being provided with the correct facts, and published the plaintiff's reply in a less prominent position, contrary to statutory requirements. The court considered the gravity of the allegations, the plaintiff's high public profile, the wide circulation of the...

Citation
[2002] KEHC 1146 (KLR)
Parties
Plaintiff: Kipyator Nicholas Kiprono Biwott; Defendant: George Mbuggus; Defendant: Kalamka Ltd
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Judgment Date
22 March 2002
Case Number
Civil Case 2143 of 1999
Procedural Posture
Civil Case / Judgment After Assessment of Damages Following Interlocutory Judgment on Liability
Outcome
Judgment for the plaintiff on assessment of damages; permanent injunction granted.
Legal Topics
Defamation, Libel, Damages Assessment, Injunctions, Aggravated Damages, Exemplary Damages
Source Language
English
Tort Law Civil Procedure Defamation Libel Damages Assessment Injunctions Aggravated Damages Exemplary Damages

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 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Kipyator Nicholas Kiprono Biwott

Plaintiff

George Mbuggus

Defendant

Kalamka Ltd

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Case / Judgment After Assessment of Damages Following Interlocutory Judgment on Liability

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the article published by the defendants was defamatory of the plaintiff.
  2. 2 What amount of compensatory and exemplary damages should be awarded for the libel committed against the plaintiff.
  3. 3 Whether the plaintiff is entitled to an injunction restraining further publication of the defamatory material.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the article published by the defendants was defamatory of the plaintiff, imputing corruption, breach of protocol, and dishonesty in public office. The natural and ordinary meaning of the words, as well as their innuendo, was to lower the plaintiff's reputation in the eyes of right-thinking members of society. The defendants failed to apologize or retract the statements, persisted in defending the libel even after being provided with the correct facts, and published the plaintiff's reply in a less prominent position, contrary to statutory requirements. The court considered the gravity of the allegations, the plaintiff's high public profile, the wide circulation of the...

Court Disposition

Judgment for the plaintiff on assessment of damages; permanent injunction granted.

Orders

  • The plaintiff is awarded Kshs. 10 million as compensatory damages for libel.
  • The plaintiff is awarded Kshs. 10 million as exemplary damages.