[2010] KEHC 4114 (KLR)

[2010] KEHC 4114 (KLR)

The court found that while the words complained of were prima facie defamatory, the defendant's reporter had acted on information provided by the plaintiffs' clients and a court decree, and had attempted to verify the facts with the plaintiffs, who were uncooperative. The article was published as a report of allegations, not as established fact, and there was no evidence of malice. The court held that the defendant's actions were protected by the defence of fair comment and that the plaintiffs' own failure to communicate with their clients contributed to the situation. Consequently, the plaintiffs failed to prove their case to the required standard and the suit was dismissed with costs to...

Citation
[2010] KEHC 4114 (KLR)
Parties
Plaintiff: Mong'are Gekong'a & Another (Gekong’a and Momanyi Advocates); Defendant: Standard Ltd
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Nakuru
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Judgment Date
4 February 2010
Case Number
Civil Suit 542 of 1997
Procedural Posture
Civil Suit / Judgment
Outcome
plaintiffs' suit dismissed with costs to the defendant
Legal Topics
Defamation, Libel, Fair Comment, Malice, Burden of Proof
Source Language
English
Tort Law Defamation Libel Fair Comment Malice Burden of Proof

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 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mong'are Gekong'a & Another (Gekong’a and Momanyi Advocates)

Plaintiff

Standard Ltd

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Suit / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the publication by the defendant was defamatory of the plaintiffs.
  2. 2 Whether the defendant's publication was protected by the defence of fair comment and truth.
  3. 3 Whether the defendant acted with malice or gross negligence in publishing the article.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that while the words complained of were prima facie defamatory, the defendant's reporter had acted on information provided by the plaintiffs' clients and a court decree, and had attempted to verify the facts with the plaintiffs, who were uncooperative. The article was published as a report of allegations, not as established fact, and there was no evidence of malice. The court held that the defendant's actions were protected by the defence of fair comment and that the plaintiffs' own failure to communicate with their clients contributed to the situation. Consequently, the plaintiffs failed to prove their case to the required standard and the suit was dismissed with costs to...

Court Disposition

plaintiffs' suit dismissed with costs to the defendant

Orders

  • The plaintiffs' case is dismissed.
  • Costs awarded to the defendant.