[2006] KEHC 2090 (KLR)
The court found that the application for an interlocutory injunction was meritorious and unopposed. The plaintiff had demonstrated a prima facie case by showing that the defendants had published and printed defamatory statements, and there was a real apprehension of further publication. The absence of opposition...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2006] KEHC 2090 (KLR)
- Parties
- Plaintiff: Kenya Revenue Authority; Defendant: Headlink Publisher Limited; Defendant: Paul Kimathi t/a J.G. Printers
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Civil Suit 129 of 2005
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Suit / Ruling on Interlocutory Injunction Application
- Outcome
- Application for interlocutory injunction allowed; orders granted as prayed in Prayer 3 and 6 of the Chamber Summons dated 10th February 2006.
- Judges
- JL Osiemo
- Legal Topics
- Defamation, Libel, Interlocutory Injunctions, Damages, Publication of False Statements
- Source Language
- en
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Kenya Revenue Authority
Plaintiff
Headlink Publisher Limited
Defendant
Paul Kimathi t/a J.G. Printers
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Civil Suit / Ruling on Interlocutory Injunction Application
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the plaintiff is entitled to an interlocutory injunction restraining the defendants from further publication of defamatory articles concerning the plaintiff and its officers.
- 2 Whether the plaintiff has established a prima facie case with a probability of success to warrant the grant of injunctive relief.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the application for an interlocutory injunction was meritorious and unopposed. The plaintiff had demonstrated a prima facie case by showing that the defendants had published and printed defamatory statements, and there was a real apprehension of further publication. The absence of opposition from the defendants and the supporting affidavit from the plaintiff's Chief Executive further strengthened the plaintiff's case. Consequently, the court allowed the application in terms of the prayers sought, specifically granting the interlocutory injunction to restrain the defendants from further publication of defamatory material concerning the plaintiff until the hearing and...
Court Disposition
Application for interlocutory injunction allowed; orders granted as prayed in Prayer 3 and 6 of the Chamber Summons dated 10th February 2006.
Orders
- An interlocutory injunction is granted restraining the defendants by themselves, their servants, agents or otherwise from publishing, circulating or disseminating in any manner whatsoever any other or further articles concerning the plaintiff, its Commissioner General, Board of Directors and/or any of its officers...
- Costs of the application to the applicant.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
24 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA
AT NAIROBI (NAIROBI LAW COURTS)
Civil Suit 129 of 2005
KENYA REVENUE AUTHORITY…………………………PLAINTIFF
VERSUS
HEADLINK PUBLISHER LIMITED
PAUL KIMATHI T/A/ J.G. PRINTERS ……………DEFENDANTS
RULING
The respondent being the purchaser and the printer respectively of the newspaper known as the WEEKLY CITIZENon 8th January 2006 in its Vol.9 No.6 issue at their instance and instigation falsely and maliciously published and printed or caused to be published at the front page an article under the sensational heading KRA BOSS Mr. Waweru caught pants down in which they made highly defamatory statements concerning the plaintiff and its officer. The applicant filed this suit against the respondent for:
(a) A permanent injunction restraining the Defendants by themselves, their servants, agents or otherwise from publishing, circulating or disseminating in any manner whatsoever any other or further articles concerning the plaintiff, its Commissioner General, Board of Directors and/or any of its officers or its business or matters directly affecting or relating to the plaintiff.
(b) General damages for libel.
(c) Damages on footing of aggravated or exemplary damages;
(d) An apology and retraction in an article given the same prominence as the defamatory one;
(e) Costs of the suit;
(f) Interest on (b) (c) and (e) above at court rates;
(g) Any other or further relief this Honourable Court may deem fit to grant;
The plaint was accompanied by a Chamber Summons application under Certificate of Urgency seeking injunctive similar to that sought in prayer 1 of the plaint (a) until the hearing and determination of this application and (b) until the hearing and determination of this suit.
The applicant appeared before Visram J on 13th February 2006. Prayer 2 of the application dated 10th February 2006 was granted for 14 days and the hearing interparties was fixed for 22nd February 2006. The judge also made a further order that the application to be served. When the application came up for hearing, there was no appearance for the respondent and Miss Muchiri counsel for the applicant informed the court that the respondent had been served and a return of service filed but the respondent did not file any papers to oppose the application nor appear in court to oppose the application. She urged the court to grant orders sought in prayer 3 of the Chamber Summons dated 10th February 2006 until the hearing and determination of this suit.
Miss Muchiri informed the court that the respondent had published two separate articles before this matter came to court and the applicant was apprehensive of repetitive publication. She relied on the grounds as contained in the body of the Chamber Summons as well as the affidavit sworn by Michael Gitau Waweru the Chief Executive of the Plaintiff. She submitted that the suit has high Chances of success.
I am satisfied that this application is meritous and being not opposed the same is allowed in terms of Prayer 3 and 6 of the Chamber Summons dated 10th February 2006.
Dated at Nairobi this 20th day of June 2006.
J.L.A. OSIEMO
JUDGE