https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/11981

**REPUBLIC OF KENYA** **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT NAIROBI** **CIVIL DIVISION** **CIVIL CASE NO. 423 OF 2014** **LUCY MOMANYI…………............................................PLAINTIFF** **-VERSUS-** **HON. GIDEON MBUVI alias MIKE SONKO……………...DEFENDANT** (*CONSOLIDATED WITH)* **CIVIL CASE NO. 424 OF 2014** **LUCY MOMANYI……………….......................................PLAINTIFF** **-VERSUS-** **THE STANDARD GROUP LTD.……..………………...1ST DEFENDANT** **JAMES SMART.……..……..…………………………….2ND DEFENDANT** **SOPHIA WANUNA……….…………………..……..…….3RD DEFENDANT** **JUDGMENT** **Pleadings** 1. **Lucy Momanyi** *(hereafter the Plaintiff)* filed this suit by a Plaint dated **04/12/2014** in **Nairobi Milimani HCCC No. 423 of 2014** as against **Hon. Gideon Mbuvi alias Mike Sonko** for alleged defamation and sought judgment against the defendant in terms of-; 2. *A permanent injunction to refrain Hon. Gideon Mbuvi alias Mike Sonko from further talking or covering about the Plaintiff or her firm regarding the subject matter.* 3. *General damages for defamation and for uttering statements concerning the Plaintiff without taking any sufficient steps or precautions to establish whether they were true.* 4. *Exemplary damage for malicious defamation for uttering statements concerning the Plaintiff with reckless disregard as to whether they were defamatory or injurious to the Plaintiff.* 5. *Costs of the suit.* 6. *Interest on (b) & (c) above.* 7. *Any other relief that the Court may deem just and fit to grant.* 8. The Plaintiff averred that on or about **01/04/2014**, Hon. Gideon Mbuvi alias Mike Sonkowhile speaking as the guest on **“KTN**” Television Station, a program titled **“Morning Express – Person of Interest”** hosted by one James Smart and Sophia Wanuna, which aired at around 7.00 o’clock in the morning, the former uttered false and malicious statements against the Plaintiff as follows-; *“So let me tell you about Lucy Momanyi. This Lucy Momanyi swindler widow, this widow wrote to me when I was an MP and I have got all the evidence with me here. This widow wrote to me ... .Senator Sonko ….I was an MP on 12th June, 2010, the widow wrote to me, “Sonko you are a mtetezi of wanyonge, I bring my case to you, kindly assist me”. The widow was married to a billionaire …..Mr. Bellhouse, I knew him, he was a family friend, he was a friend to my father, then the deceased, maybe Mr. Bellhouse, the tycoon, the investor, had cancer. He knew that he was going to die, to lose his life, then he did a will, Lucy Momanyi was entrusted as the family lawyer of Joy Bellhouse and the family. So all these documents were deposited in “her” office, the log books, the shares, the title deeds, Bellhouse had two beach plots in Diani, 40 acres each, the value now is 600 million per acre, but the problem, why I’m sympathizing with this widow, Bellhouse was a billionaire but today, the Deceased’s kids are languishing in poverty, no school fees to pay for the kids no money for food to pay for the kids, the widow came to me, “Sonko please help me” This is the title deed for Bellhouse when he was alive, she deposited these title deeds with the lawyer” Now the lawyer is trying to divert the attention of the public, “she's” trying to tarnish my name, “she” rushed to one of your...the dailies, the newspapers, she rushed to tarnish my name in the Standard.* *So Bellhause Joy brought to me, I wrote to the LSK, this woman Lucy Momanyi, LSK has already written to “her” CID directors have already written to “her” be arrested anytime. That time there was another lawyer, I don’t want to mention his name, today he's a Judge. They conspired with this Lucy Momanyi, swindled this woman and this...this Lucy Momanyl is the person...is the guy...is the person who called this widow and threatened her, told her if you don’t withdraw this case, we are going to kill you. And indeed, its true Lucy Momanyi sent thugs to this widow on 2 of March...the widow was not in the house.* *So.....let me finish this is a very important question because it’s even in today’s paper. Let me just clarify. I called Lucy Momanyi, “Listen Lucy Momanyl, what you are doing is very wrong, you are a lawyer, you are a FIDA lawyer, but you are not supposed to threaten this poor widow, you stole everything from her!* *I'm calling Lucy Momanyi a thief! She’s a lawyer but a thief!! And I have got evidence to prove that she is a thief! Let her take me to Court, I'll prove, I've got evidence. She’s a thief because she was entrusted by this family but she swindled everything!! Wealth worth 1.2 billion!* *So what has been created by Lucy Momanyi, whose niece is married to Kidero’s son…..this is just some conspiracy to tarnish my name, and I've got evidence!! Christine, niece ya Lucy Momanyi is married to Kidero's son!! So these are just reports to tarnish my name, and I've got evidence with me. Lucy Momanyi is a lawyer, she's a thief!! She should not sue Standard, let her sue Sonko! She’s a thief!!! And I've got evidence with me here. All the shares are here, letters of administration is here, the will is here. Lucy Momanyi is a lawyer in Mombasa and she’s a thief!! She’s a crook!! And she should be charged very soon. Yeah! And the file is here!”* 1. The Plaintiff averred that the uttered defamatory statement was done by Hon. Gideon Mbuvi alias Mike Sonko in reckless disregard of whether or not they were true or without taking any steps or any sufficient steps or precautions to establish they were true. 2. It was further averred that the aforesaid statements were not only false and malicious but were also calculated to disparage the character of the Plaintiff and were meant in their ordinary meaning to purport that the Plaintiff was a fraudster, murderer, thief, criminal among others. 3. That Hon. Gideon Mbuvi alias Mike Sonko statement was actuated by extreme malice and spite against the Plaintiff in his uttering of the offending words which were not only false but were highly defamatory of her and were intended to injure the Plaintiff in her professional and personal capacity, for which the Plaintiff claims damages. 4. It was averred that the Plaintiff’s reputation, image, credit, integrity and status as a person and a professional has been substantially damaged by reason of the very wide circulation of the Defendant’s utterance on national television which airs nationally, internationally and on the World Wide Web. 5. **Hon. Gideon Mbuvi alias Mike Sonko** filed a **statement of defence dated 26/08/2015** denying the key averments in the plaint meanwhile averred in the alternative but without prejudice to the averments in his statement of defence that if at all the impugned statements were made on the date in question on KTN Television, the same was done as an issue of public interest and the statement was not in any way malicious but was in response to accusations made and or questions raised by the Plaintiff, which in retaliation or response, were fair and just. 6. The Plaintiff contemporaneously filed a plaint of even datein **Nairobi Milimani HCCC No. 424 of 2014** as against **The Standard Group Ltd, James Smart** and **Sophia Wanuna** for alleged defamation and sought judgment against them by way of-; 7. *A permanent injunction to refrain further media coverage about the Plaintiff or her firm regarding the defamatory statements.* 8. *General damages for defamation and for publishing and airing defamatory statements concerning the Plaintiff without taking any sufficient steps or precautions to establish whether they were true.* 9. *Exemplary damages for malicious defamation for publishing and airing words concerning the Plaintiff which reckless disregard as to whether or not they were defamatory or injurious to the Plaintiff.* 10. *Aggravated damages.* 11. *Costs of the suit.* 12. *Interest on (b), (c) & (d) above.* 13. *Such further or other relief as the honorable Court may deem fit and just to grant.* 14. The Plaintiff averred that at all material times she was a lawyer who had worked with renowned institutions such as FIDA Kenya, local and international consultations with reputable corporate clients. 15. That on or about the 01/04/2014, on their program that aired around 7.00 o’clock in the morning James Smart and Sophia Wanuna being employees, agents or servants of The Standard Group Ltd, published or caused to be published their report that was broadcasted by the latter on KTN under the headline banner **“Morning Express – Person of Interest”** which publication contained false and malicious allegations against the Plaintiff as follows-; *“JAMES: Yesterday, just yesterday in our Newspaper was covered quite extensively. A woman came through and said that you participated in her being swindled about 16 million.* *SONKO: I think it was an afterthought. I know Lucy Momanyi. She’s an advocate in Mombasa. I respect her because she’s a lawyer. She’s a FIDA lawyer but when somebody violates the Law. When somebody swindles another woman and you are a woman that is very wrong and I cannot sit and watch such nonsense happen. I can term it as nonsense.* *I was a suspect once upon a time. I was in prison once upon a time. Nelson Mandela was in prison he became the president of South Africa. Uhuru’s father was in prison, he became the president of the Republic of Kenya. Raila Odinga was in prison, he became the prime minister of the Republic of Kenya. Even Sonko was in prison.* *JAMES: There’s nothing wrong with that.* *SONKO: Like people should ask themselves. ‘Why was Sonko in prison?’* *JAMES: Ok. Why?* *SONKO: I never killed anybody. I don’t deal in drugs but these are things, which happen in life. I was not serious with my education but now I have gone back to school. I am urging all the students, all the youth, be serious with your education today. This is the mentorship subject to mentor* *my colleagues.* *Based on the Mombasa advocate, there was a time, when I became a Member of Parliament for Makadara. I had so many cases. Over twenty cases. Framed up cases, cases which happened in 1997, 1998, 99, 2000. Indeed, its true I was a suspect in that case. I was arraigned in Court before Mombasa Chief Magistrate Rosemary Mutaka. Because I was a public servant, my file was taken to the DPP, it was investigated and I was acquitted.* *So, let me tell you about Lucy Momanyi. This Lucy Momanyi swindler widow, this widow wrote to me when I was an MP and I have got all the evidence with me here. This widow wrote to me….Senator Sonko….I was an MP on 12th June, 2010, the widow wrote to me, “Sonko you are a mtetezi of wanyonge, I bring my case to you, kindly assist me”. The widow was married to a billionaire …..Mr. Bellhouse, I knew him, he was a family friend, he was a friend to my father, then the deceased, maybe Mr. Bellhouse, the tycoon, the investor, had cancer. He knew that he was going to die, to lose his life, then he did a will, Lucy Momanyi was entrusted as the family lawyer of Joy Bellhouse and the family. So all these documents were deposited in “her” office, the log books, the shares, the title deeds, Bellhouse had two beach plots in Diani, 40 acres each, the value now is 600 million per acre, but the problem, why I’m sympathizing with this widow, Bellhouse was a billionaire but today, the Deceased’s kids are languishing in poverty, no school fees to pay for the kids no money for food to pay for the kids, the widow came to me, “Sonko please help me”* *This is the title deed for Bellhouse when he was alive, she deposited these title deeds with the lawyer” Now the lawyer is trying to divert the attention of the public, “she's” trying to tarnish my name, “she” rushed to one of your...the dailies, the newspapers, she rushed to tarnish my name in the Standard.* *So Bellhause Joy brought to me, I wrote to the LSK, this woman Lucy Momanyi, LSK has already written to “her” CID directors have already written to “her” be arrested anytime. That time there was another lawyer, I don’t want to mention his name, today he's a Judge. They conspired with this Lucy Momanyt, swindled this woman and this...this Lucy Momanyl is the person...is the guy...is the person who called this widow and threatened her, told her if you don’t withdraw this case, we are going to kill you. And indeed, its true Lucy Momanyi sent thugs to this widow on 2 of March...the widow was not in house* *(Sophia tries to interrupt)* *So.....let me finish this is a very important question because it’s even in today’s paper. Let me just clarify. I called Lucy Momanyi, “Listen Lucy Momanyi, what you are doing is very wrong, you are a lawyer, you are a FIDA lawyer, but you are not supposed to threaten this poor widow, you stole everything from her!* *I'm calling Lucy Momanyi a thief! She’s a lawyer but a thief!! And I have got evidence to prove that she is a thief! Let her take me to Court, I'll prove, I've got evidence. She’s a thief because she was entrusted by this family but she swindled everything!! Wealth worth 1.2 billion!* *This poor widow is languishing in poverty today. and I instructed the widow Joy Bellhouse to go to Diani Police Station. She went there on 3rd March. She booked a report vide O.B No.47, that Lucy Momanyi wasn’t to kill her. The OCPD Dian can bare me witness, DCIO Diani can bare me witness. So what has been created by Lucy Momanyi, whose niece is married to Kidero’s son. This is just a conspiracy to tarnish my name.* *JAMES: So, it’s politics.* *SONKO: And I’ve got evidence. Christine, the niece ya Lucy Momanyi is married to Kidero's son.* *SOPHIA: So, these are just reports to tarnish my name, and I've got evidence with me. Lucy Momanyi is a lawyer, she's a thief!! She should not sue Standard, let her sue Sonko! She’s a thief!!! And I've got evidence with me here.* *JAMES: Absolutely.* *SONKO: All the shares are here, letters of administration is here, the will is here. Lucy Momanyi is a lawyer in Mombasa and she’s a thief!! She’s a crook!! And she should be charged very soon. Yeah! And the file is here.* *SOPHIA: Since she’s not here to defend herself, let’s move on to the next thing.”* 1. It was further averred that the words, which were broadcast to a substantial number of unidentified persons as well as numerous other online listeners and users of the internet, in their natural and ordinary meaning meant and were understood to mean that the Plaintiff was a fraudster, murderer, thief, criminal among others. 2. That by reason of the presentation and broadcast of the impugned words, the Plaintiff has been brought into public scandal, odium, hatred, contempt and has been seriously injured in her reputation, particularly in her profession where reputation is everything. 3. It was averred that The Standard Group Ltd, James Smart and Sophia Wanuna presented and broadcasted the said words in knowledge that they were slanderous and or with a reckless regard as to whether they were slanderous or not. That in presentation or causing to be presented and broadcast of the said words, The Standard Group Ltd, James Smart and Sophia Wanuna were motivated by spite and malevolence, to wit, the Plaintiff has suffered aggravated injury to her dignity, self-confidence and reputation as well as respected member of the legal fraternity and of society in general. 4. **The Standard Group Ltd, James Smart** and **Sophia Wanuna** filed a **statement of defence dated 26/02/2015** denying the key averments in the plaint meanwhile averred without prejudice to the averments in their statement of defence that the publications complained of was made on an occasion of absolute and qualified privilege as duly acknowledged by the **Defamation Act.** 5. It was further averred that the publication complained of were fair comment, justified, accurate reporting, made in good faith and without malice upon a matter of great public interest, to wit, if the Plaintiff has been injured as alleged or at all, The Standard Group Ltd, James Smart and Sophia Wanuna distance themselves totally from liability towards the same. 6. On 23/05/2023 the suits were consolidated for disposal, to wit, this case,Nairobi Milimani HCCC No. 423 of 2014, was selected as the lead file. 7. Subsequently, on 20/06/2023, for the purpose of good order towards disposal of the consolidated suits, the Court designated **Hon. Gideon Mbuvi alias Mike Sonko, The Standard Group Ltd, James Smart** and **Sophia Wanuna** as the **1st, 2nd, 3rd & 4th Defendant/Defendants,** respectively. 8. The aforestated consequently formed the state of pleadings and parties prior to hearing. 9. That said, the consolidated suits proceeded to full hearing during which only the Plaintiff and 1st Defendant called evidence in support of the averments in their respective pleadings. **Plaintiff’s Evidence** 1. **Lucy Momanyi,** testified as **PW1.** She began by identifying herself as an Advocate of the High Court of Kenya with 35 years standing practicing in Mombasa. She proceeded to adopt her witness statements dated 04/12/2024 as her evidence in chief meanwhile adduced into evidence the documents appearing in list of documents of even date as **Pexh.1.** 2. The gist of her evidence was that she was defamation in the video clip that was since played before the Court whereas being a corporate lawyer, church lawyer and family oriented since publication she has lost clients. It was her evidence that she had no personal or professional relationship with the 1st Defendant whereas Joy Bellhouse and her husband were her clients for many years. 3. That she drafted a will for the latter and was equally appointed as the executor of the said will alongside the widow. It was her evidence that she executed the will upon demise of the Mr. Bellhouse, to wit, the aforestated was carried out upon due diligence. 4. She went on to state that Mrs. Bellhouse had an issue in respect of a beach front property, of which upon conducting a search established that the property had been sold meanwhile was not in the will of Mr. Bellhouse. She concluded by stating that she was unaware that the Plaintiff had sought assistance from the 1st Defendant. 5. **Under cross-examination**, it was her evidence that the 1st Defendant called and proceeded to threaten and insult her over the telephone, to wit, she proceeded to report the incident to the PCIO Mombasa and recorded a statement. She confirmed that despite the broadcast not capturing her name the 1st Defendant discussed her person in the said broadcast. 6. She maintained that though the will was not executed at the jurat, Mr. Bellhouse signed at the bottom of every page of the will. That she was appointed as an executor of the will, to wit, her appointment was not self-imposed whereas the same was only to take effect upon the demise of Mrs. Bellhouse, who is still alive. 7. It was her evidence that after the broadcast she wrote to Mrs. Bellhouse about the issue however prior to the said publication the latter had reported the issues concerning the will to the DCI, EACC, LSK and many other people. She testified that in the impugned broadcast, the 1st Defendant mentioned theft and swindled meanwhile as concerns Mrs. Bellhouses’s protestations, she moved the Court in order to be discharged from the estate. 8. She confirmed that though the allegation originated from Mrs. Bellhouse, she had no issue with her however, the 1st Defendant publicized in the broadcast that she was a thief and swindler. That as a result of the broadcast she lost clients however did not evince any material demonstrative of the fact that she lost clients. 9. That the words complained of were specifically uttered by 1st Defendant and not the 3rd or 4th Defendant, given that the latter were merely moderators of the broadcast in question therefore were not aware of what a guest would say. It was equally her testimony that she had no material before Court demonstrative of the fact that 3rd and 4th Defendant conspired or planned with the 1st Defendant to defame her though the former allowed the latter to continue with impugned utterances in the broadcast. 10. She did confirm that the 3rd and 4th Defendant asked the 1st Defendant to shift the conversation from her as she was not there to defend herself however insisted that the aforementioned being the moderators of the show they ought to have stopped the 1st Defendant from continuing with the conversation. She iterated that she lost a lot of business as an advocate however, despite the fact that she continues with her practice, it is not at the same scale prior to the impugned broadcast. That as a consequence of the latter she was affected mentally. 11. **In re-examination**, she maintained that she sued the Defendant because repeatedly inferred the fact that she was a thief and had swindled Mr. Bellhouse’s widow. That the latter will has not been challenged to date whereas she applied to be discharged from being an executor of the Deceased’s estate, to wit, the orders were granted by consent. 12. She stated that everything in respect of the Deceased’s estate was settled before she was discharged as an executor whereas she was never arrested or summoned to record a statement with the police of the latter’s estate. Therefore, the purported allegation in the impugned broadcast were false whereas the 3rd and 4th Defendant condoned the 1st Defendant’s utterances in their show, to wit, they were part and parcel of the defamation. 13. That the impugned publication is still available on YouTube whereas its effect touched on her integrity with the consequence of impeding on her business reputation, to wit, the Court ought to allow the consolidated suits as prayed. **1st Defendant's Evidence** 1. **Hon. Gideon Mbuvi alias Mike Sonko** testified as **DW1.** He began by identifying himself as a Politician, Businessman and Real Estate Proprietor. He proceeded to adopt his witness statement dated 09/05/2016 as his evidence in chief meanwhile adduced into evidence the documents appearing in his list of documents dated 31/11/2023 as **Dexh.1-11** and further list of documents as **Dexh.12.** 2. It was his evidence that on or around 31/03/2014, the 1st Defendant in its newspaper published an article premised on accusation against him advanced by the Plaintiff. That it is on the premise of the said article that he was asked to respond to the same as to whether the Plaintiff’s accusations were true or false. 3. He confirmed that he had been in communication with the Plaintiff over the matter whereas given that it was Plaintiff that accused him he had to defend himself. That it is on the backdrop of the above that the Plaintiff filed suit against him however was categorical that at no particular time did he utter the defamatory statement, to wit, the Plaintiff’s purported apprehension are misplaced. 4. **On cross-examination**, **DW1** confirmed having uttered the words in the impugned broadcast however maintained that he went to KTN to defend himself in respect of the Plaintiff’s accusations. Concerning the Deceased’s estate he reported the matter to DCI Ukunda. While referring to Mrs. Bellhouse's statement to the police, he stated that he was unaware whether the Plaintiff was charged in Court, further referencing a letter from the LSK addressed to the Plaintiff, he confirmed that the letter does not show any charges being preferred as against the Plaintiff. He equally confirmed that Mr. Bellhouse’s will, appointed the Plaintiff as an executor of the estate and did not capture her as a wife to the Deceased. 5. He iterated that he called the Plaintiff a thief in the impugned publication given that all the property in the Deceased’s estate was transferred to Plaintiff however after complaints she returned the same. He likewise confirmed that he had not evinced any material before the Court demonstrative of the fact that the Plaintiff appointed herself as co-wife in the Deceased estate. 6. In conclusion, he stated that he was co-opted or scripted to utter the words in the impugned broadcast and that he stated facts that he believed to be true at the time premised on documents he has since adduced as evidence before the Court. 7. **In re-examination,** it was his evidence that there were two (2) wills, to wit, the one obtained from the Court was not executed however confirmed that neither was the draft in widow’s possession was signed as well. He concluded by stating that, it is only after he got involved in the matter that the Plaintiff removed herself as a beneficiary of the estate. 8. At the close of the trial, directions were taken on filing of submissions. Only the Plaintiff and 1st Defendant complied. **Plaintiff’s Submissions** 1. Counsel for the Plaintiff began his submissions by setting out a brief history of the matter and evidence tendered before the Court meanwhile condensed his submissions into five (5) cogent issues for the Court’s determination. 2. On whether the words complained of were defamatory of the Plaintiff, counsel argued that the impugned words constitute defamation per se under **Section 3** of the **Defamation Act** because they imputed by the Plaintiff; theft, fraud, criminality, professional misconduct, threats to kill, sending thugs and abuse of office. Counsel went on to submit that these allegations directly attacked the Plaintiff’s integrity as an advocate and inevitably lowered her estimation among right-thinking members of society. 3. Particular emphasis was placed upon the contention describing the Plaintiff publicly as "a thief" strikes at the core of professional integrity and therefore no proof of special damage is required. While calling to aid the decision in **Musikari Kombo v Royal Media Services Limited [2018] KECA 801 (KLR)** counsel posited that the Plaintiff established all the constituent ingredients of defamation as exhorted by said decision. 4. Concerning whether the Defendants published the impugned words, counsel summarily posited that the publication is undisputed because the 1st Defendant readily admits having spoken the words during a live national television broadcast, repeated them several times, expressly named the Plaintiff, admitted authorship during the trial and allowed continued online republication. 5. It was further posited that the 2nd Defendant aired the broadcast while the 3rd and 4th Defendants hosted and directed the interview during which the defamatory statements were uttered. Therefore, the publication having been established both through video evidence and the 1st Defendant's own admission, the 2nd to 4th Defendant published the statement, repeated the publication, uploaded the recording online and expressly identified the Plaintiff throughout the broadcast. 6. As to whether the Defendants have a viable defence, counsel argued that although the 1st Defendant pleaded denial, justification and public interest, he produced no evidence capable of sustaining the above defences. That the 1st Defendant failed to demonstrate any theft, failed to produce any police report, disciplinary finding or documentary evidence of wrongdoing, whereas the Plaintiff produced rebuttal evidence including the will, probate documents, correspondence, Law Society responses, an Occurrence Book report and witness statement therefore the 1st Defendant’s pleaded defences fails in their entirely. 7. With respect to the defence absolute privilege, qualified privilege, fair comment and justification as advanced by the 2nd to 4th Defendants, counsel posited that a morning television show on a private broadcasting station is neither a parliamentary proceeding nor a judicial proceeding and therefore cannot attract absolute privilege. 8. That for the defences to attach in favour of the 2nd to 4th Defendant, it required verification, balance and good faith, none of which existed because the Defendants failed to verify the allegations, the utterances were presented as facts rather than comments, failed to seek the Plaintiff's response, failed to direct the discussion responsibly, subsequently uploaded the broadcast online and failed to call evidence to shore support the allegations in the broadcast. Reliance was placed on the decision in **Musikari Kombo** (supra)and the English decision in **Reynolds v Times Newspapers Ltd [1999] 4 All ER 609.** 9. As to whether the Defendants acted with malice, while calling to aid the decision in **Philomena Mbete Mwilu v Standard Group Limited [2022] KEHC 1375 (KLR)**, counsel argued that malice is demonstrated by the 1st Defendant's personal grudge after being reported to the police, his reckless disregard of the truth, failure to verify facts, political grandstanding, continued republication of the allegations, refusal to apologize and or regret during his testimony. 10. Counsel further iterated that the 2nd to 4th Defendant, failed to verify facts, failed to contact the Plaintiff, failed to present a balanced story, broadcasted sensational allegations, was commercially motivated through ratings and viewership, failed to render an apology, failed to retract the broadcast, failed to call any witnesses and published the broadcast in reckless disregard for the truth. 11. On whether the Plaintiff is entitled to the reliefs sought, it was summarily submitted that the present case constitutes grave, aggravated and malicious defamatory broadcast affecting a senior corporate advocate of over forty (40) years' standing which occasioned business loss through a nationally and internationally disseminated platform, with no apology or retraction having been offered. 12. Finally it was submitted that the Defendants' attack upon the Plaintiff’s professional reputation attract substantial damages, failure to apologize justifies aggravated damages, and that malicious defamation published to a wide audience warrants exemplary damages. Counsel therefore urged the Court to award **Kshs. 20,000,000/-** in **general damages**, **Kshs. 5,000,000/-** in **aggravated damages**, **Kshs. 5,000,000/-** in **exemplary damages** together with a **permanent injunction**, **a televised unconditional apology, costs** and **interest.** 13. The decisions in **Lucy M Kambuni v Nation Media Group Limited [2020] KEHC 5548 (KLR);** **Samuel Ndungu Mukunya v Nation Media Group Limited & another [2015] KEHC 7447 (KLR);** **Alnashir Visram v Standard Limited [2016] KEHC 2050 (KLR);** and **Philomena Mbete Mwilu** (supra) were cited in the aforestated regard. **1st Defendant’s Submissions** 1. On the part of the 1st Defendant, counsel equally began by setting out in brief the events leading hereto whereafter she proceeded to address the issues as coined by the Plaintiff. 2. On whether the 1st Defendant’s publication was a protected in reply to the Plaintiff’s own publication, counsel argued that the impugned publication must be viewed in the context of an ongoing public dispute initiated by the Plaintiff. Before the publication of 01/04/2014, the Plaintiff had publicly accused him of involvement in fraud, criticized police investigations, and called for investigations through media reports while acting for the alleged victim. Therefore, the 1st Defendant’s utterances were merely a contemporaneous and proportionate response intended to correct the public record by presenting the widow's complaint concerning the administration of the Bellhouse estate. Reliance was placed on the English decision in **Adam v Ward [1917] AC 309.** 3. Concerning whether there was truth to the publication, it submitted that the impugned publication was based on an existing complaint by Mrs. Bellhouse regarding the Plaintiff's administration of the Mr. Bellhouse estate in Mombasa High Court Succession Cause No. 388 of 2009, supported by her statement to the DCI and correspondence to the LSK. 4. That the widow alleged improprieties concerning Mr. Bellhouse’s will, the Plaintiff's role in the administration of the estate , and the handling of estate assets whereas the Plaintiff's subsequent withdrawal from the administration reinforced the credibility of those complaints. On that basis, counsel contends that the Plaintiff did not fabricate the allegations and that the substantial truth of the publication lay in the existence of serious and credible concerns regarding the Plaintiff's conduct, without requiring proof of every literal statement. 5. Addressing the Court on the applicable standard on the defence of justification as may be distinguished from the defence of qualified privilege and the 1st Defendant’s reply, counsel posited that the Plaintiff incorrectly conflated the defences. That the Plaintiff's criticism that he failed to produce a police report, Law Society finding or criminal charge applies the wrong legal test. 6. It was argued that the plea of justification merely requires proof that the substance of the publication was substantially true, which was established through; the widow's written complaint; her recorded police statement; and the Plaintiff's subsequent withdrawal from administration of the estate as a result. 7. That the alternative defences of qualified privilege and reply to attack do not require proof of truth to a criminal standard but only an honestly held and reasonable belief in the substance of the publication. Therefore, the Plaintiff's insistence upon police investigations or Law Society disciplinary findings as prerequisites to those defences is legally misconceived. The decision in **Geoffe & Associates v Fred Black Insurance Brokers Limited [2019] KEHC (KLR), Charles Katiambo Musungu v Dorine Lusweti [2021] KEHC 9546 (KLR)** and **Mutheo v Chairman Board of Management Machakos [2024] KEHC 8413 (KLR)** were cited in the above regard. 8. Submitting on whether the 1st Defendant acted without malice, counsel summarily posited that malice cannot be inferred from the 1st Defendant’s utterances because it was an honest response based on Mrs. Bellhouse's pre-existing complaint to the Law Society of Kenya and the police, which was further reinforced by the Plaintiff's subsequent withdrawal from the estate administration. 9. It was contended that the Plaintiff's allegations of personal animosity, inadequate verification, political grandstanding, refusal to apologize, absence of regret, and the continued online availability of the broadcast do not establish malice or undermine his pleaded defences of justification, qualified privilege, and reply to attack. 10. On whether the Plaintiff has failed to prove that the utterance by the 1st Defendant were defamatory, while calling to aid the decision in **Musikari Kombo** (supra), counsel asserted that the Plaintiff bore the burden of proving all the essential elements of defamation, including falsity, malice, and injury to reputation, and of disproving the pleaded defences of justification, qualified privilege, and reply to attack. That the Plaintiff failed to discharge the said burden, having failed to avail independent evidence of reputational loss or other loss beyond her own assertions. 11. Penultimately, it was submitted that the authorities relied on by the Plaintiff in support of the award of damages were not applicable to the instant matter as the Plaintiff produced no evidence demonstrating loss of employment, loss of clients, loss of professional standing or other measurable injury attributable to the publication. 12. Further, no witness testified that the publication lowered the Plaintiff's reputation, and no accountant's, auditor's, medical or psychiatric evidence was produced to quantify financial loss or mental anguish. 13. Consequently, counsel contended that there is no evidential foundation upon which the Court may infer reputational or pecuniary damage or awards in general, aggravated or exemplary damages, particularly in the absence of proof of malice. In conclusion, the Court was urged to dismiss the Plaintiff’s consolidated suits with costs. **Analysis and Determination** 1. The Court has carefully considered the respective parties’ pleadings, the evidence adduced by respective parties and their written submissions as well as authorities relied in support thereof and deductively crystallizes the following **issues for determination-:** 1. *Whether the Plaintiff has made out a case for defamation against the Defendants?* 2. *Whether the defence of qualified privilege, justification (truth), reply and fair comment are available to the Defendants? and* 3. *Whether the Plaintiff is entitled to an award of damages, and if so, the quantum*. ***Whether the Plaintiff has made out a case for defamation and whether the defence of qualified privilege, justification (truth), reply and fair comment are available to the Defendants?*** 1. In so far as the tort of defamation is concerned, the rationale behind the law of defamation, as rightly submitted by the parties before me, was spelt out by the Court of Appeal in **Musikari Kombo** (supra), wherein it was stated that; *“The law of defamation is concerned with the protection of a person’s reputation. Patrick O'Callaghan in the Common Law Series: The Law of Tort at paragraph 25.1 expressed himself in the following manner:* *“The law of defamation, or, more accurately, the law of libel and slander, is concerned with the protection of reputation: 'As a general rule, English law gives effect to the ninth commandment that a man shall not speak evil falsely of his neighbour. It supplies a temporary sanction …’* *Defamation protects a person's reputation that is the estimation in which he is held by others; it does not protect a person's opinion of himself nor his character. The law recognizes in every man a right to have the estimation in which he stands in the opinion of others unaffected by false statements to his discredit' and it affords redress against those who speak such defamatory falsehoods…”* 1. Further, according to **Black’s Law Dictionary, 9th Edition at Pg. 479** defamation is defined as: *“The act of harming the reputation of another by making a false statement to a third person.”* 1. It must also be remembered that when it concerns the tort of defamation, there exists competition between the private and public interest. The current constitutional dispensation at **Article 33(1) of the constitution of Kenya** guarantees the freedom of expression by way of seeking, receiving or imparting information. Corollary to the forestated, is **Sub-Article (3)** which provides that in exercise of the right of freedom of expression, every person shall respect the rights and reputation of others. 2. Notably, **Article 34** guarantees the freedom of the media whereas **Articles 25** and **Articles** **31** protect the inherent dignity of every person and the right to privacy. These rights are reinforced by the provisions of the **Defamation Act**. 3. That said, considering these competing rights **Lord Denning MR** stated inEnglish Case of **Fraser v Evans & Others [1969] 1 ALL ER 8** -**;** *“The right of speech is one which it is for the public interest that individuals should possess, and indeed, that they should exercise it without impediment, so long as no wrongful act is done; and unless an alleged libel is untrue, there is no wrong committed.”* 1. The Court of Appeal in the case of **Swanya v Toyota East Africa Ltd & another [2009] KECA 379 (KLR)** rendered that in a suit founded on defamation the plaintiff must prove the following elements -: * 1. *That the matter of which the plaintiff complains is defamatory in character.* 2. *That defamatory statement or utterance was published by the defendants. Publication in the sense of defamation means that the defamatory statement was communicated to someone other than the person defamed.* 3. *That it was published maliciously.* 4. *In slander, subject to certain exceptions, the plaintiff has suffered special damage.* 2. Additionally, the Court of Appeal in **Patani & another v Patani [2019] KECA 480 (KLR)** while addressing itself to the purport of the law of defamation stated that: - *“In rehashing, we note the ingredients of defamation were summarized in the case of John Ward v Standard Ltd. HCC 1062 of 2005 as follows:* 1. *The statement must be defamatory.* 2. *The statement must refer to the plaintiff.* 3. *The statement must be published by the defendant.* 4. *The statement must be false.”* 5. It is trite that the ingredients set out in **Patani** (supra) are sequential hurdles, to say, all must successively be met in order for one to succeed in a claim premised on defamation. In this case, I garner from the respective Defendants' defenses that ingredients **(ii)** & **(iii)** above have not been contested, as the 1st Defendant expressly admits to uttering of the impugned words whereas and the 2nd to 4th Defendants implicitly admit to broadcasting the aforestated. 6. Therefore, the two (2) issues in dispute and to be considered contemporaneously with respect to the Defendants are *whether the broadcast were defamatory and or false? and whether the defences as advanced by the Defendants are tenable?* 7. It is substantially acknowledged that on 01/04/2014 the 1st Defendant uttered the impugned statements concerning the Plaintiff during a live broadcast on a programme under the banner **“Morning Express – Person of Interest”** at the 2nd Defendant’s TV station known as **“KTN”**, of which, was moderated by the 3rd and 4th Defendants. 8. That the statements referred to the Plaintiff, and that they were broadcast nationally and thereafter became available online. It is also common ground that the dispute arose against the background of the Plaintiff's involvement in the administration of the Estate of the late James Simon Bellhouse and that there had been an existing dispute between the Plaintiff and the 1st Defendant preceding the broadcast. 9. Both parties further acknowledge that the Plaintiff is an Advocate of the High Court of Kenya and that the Defendants publication was prompted by issues relating to the Plaintiff's conduct in the administration of the Estate of the late James Simon Bellhouse, although they fundamentally disagreed as to the truth, propriety and legal effect of the publication. It therefore follows that in light of the above undisputed facts, the principal issues for determination concern the earlier noted ingredients **(i)** & **(iv)** in **Patani** (supra), whether the defences advanced by the Defendants are tenable and whether the Plaintiff is entitled to the reliefs sought for in her pleadings. With the above in mind, the relevant facet of the impugned broadcast has been captured elsewhere in this judgment therefore requires no restatement at this point. 1. The Plaintiff’s contention is that Defendants failed to verify the allegations, the utterances were presented as facts rather than comments, failed to seek the Plaintiff's response, failed to direct the discussion responsibly and failed to call evidence to shore support the allegations in the broadcast. 2. Further, by dint of the article, the plaintiff urged that the natural and ordinary meaning of the said broadcast was that the Plaintiff is a fraudster, a murderer, a thief, is dishonest and was involved in a conspiracy to defraud, is not fit to practice as an advocate, has questionable skills as an advocate, cannot be trusted, engages in corruption and is a political saboteur. 3. Notably, the transcript of broadcast as pleaded and later played before the Court employed varied choices of words such as *“This Lucy Momanyi swindler widow”, “Deceased’s kids are languishing in poverty”, “lawyer is trying …..to tarnish my name”, “Lucy Momanyi, LSK has already written to “her” CID directors have already written to “her” be arrested anytime”, “Lucy Momanyt, swindled this woman...this Lucy Momanyl is the person...... who called this widow and threatened her, told her if you don’t withdraw this case, we are going to kill you”,* 4. The utterances further employed the following words *“And indeed, its true Lucy Momanyi sent thugs to this widow on 2 of March...the widow was not in house”, “Lucy Momanyl, …… you are not supposed to threaten this poor widow, you stole everything from her”,* “*I'm calling Lucy Momanyi a thief! She’s a lawyer but a thief”, “And I have got evidence to prove that she is a thief”, “Let her take me to Court, I'll prove, I've got evidence”, “She’s a thief because she was entrusted by this family but she swindled everything.. Wealth worth 1.2 billion*” and “*She should not sue Standard, let her sue Sonko! She’s a thief!!! And I've got evidence with me here*” 5. My understanding of the broadcast in its entirety and as particularly as concerns the Plaintiff is that while the 1st Defendant was responding to allegations by the latter in an earlier article published on 11/03/2014 in the 2nd Defendant’s “Standard Newspaper”, it imputed that the Plaintiff as an Advocate of the High Court of Kenya, had fraudulently misappropriated and stolen property and assets worth approximately 1.2 billion entrusted to her by the late Mr. Bellhouse and his family, thereby impoverishing his widow and children. That the Plaintiff threatened the widow, conspired with others to conceal the alleged fraud, and orchestrated a campaign to tarnish the 1st Defendant’s reputation. 6. That said, a cursory review of the **Pexh.1**, particularly the will in respect of the estate of the late Mr. Bellhouse, I note therein while the jurat was not executed every page in respect of the will was executed by the testator. Nevertheless, concerning the validity of will, the same is not a preserve of this Court but that of the Probate Court in Mombasa. I also note that the 1st Defendant did not evince any material demonstrative of the fact that the will was challenged in Court by the beneficiaries and in particular the wife to the testator. 7. Further, the will in question at paragraph 21 appointed the Plaintiff as an executor and trustee in the event Mrs. Bellhouse did not survive the testator or on both their demise, contrary to the 1st Defendant’s imputation from his utterances that the Plaintiff somewhat benefited from the estate of the Deceased. 8. I also note from the raft of correspondences drawn up by the Plaintiff addressed various persons, as may concern assets in respect of the testator’s estate, that the Plaintiff was merely to bring to the attention of the said asset managers her role as an advocate in the interest of establishing, actualizing, consolidating and realizing the testator’s assets. 9. It is equally apparent that the confirmed grant reflected the testator’s wishes wherein the latter’s assets were all encapsulated and distributed as intended by the testator. At the risk of repetition, there was no evidence that Mrs. Bellhouse challenged the confirmed grant. 10. While I note from **Dexh.4 & 5**, that Mrs. Bellhouse had reservations concerning the manner in which the Deceased’s estate was being handled and even appeared to allude to be intermeddling in her statement to the police, I gather, there were no criminal charges preferred as against the Plaintiff. 11. Likewise, there was equally no evidence that Mrs. Bellhouse moved the probate Court appropriately, to cite the Plaintiff for intermeddling or moved to set aside the confirmed grant due to the latter’s failure to encapsulate all properties and assets belonging to the Deceased in the confirmed grant. 12. From **DW1’s** utterances in the broadcast, he appeared to ascribe truth to the allegations as against the Plaintiff, yet both **Pexh.1** and **Dexh.1-12**, tell a different story as relates to the manner in which the Plaintiff handled the testator’s estate. In any event, despite the complaint by Mrs. Bellhouse to the Mombasa Law Society, there was equally no finding of culpability or wrongdoing by Plaintiff. 13. With the above in reserve, as stated in **Patani** (supra), defamation is actionable *per se* whereas concerning the applicable test in defamation, this Court draws guidance from the test spelt out in **Onama v Uganda Argus Ltd (1969) EA** bythe East African Court of Appeal, that-: *“In deciding whether the words are defamatory, the test is what the words could reasonably be regarded as meaning, not only to the general public, but also to all those “who have a greater or special knowledge of the subject matter”.* 1. The exhortation of defamation being actionable *per se, was* recently reiterated by the Court of Appeal in **Matumbi v Tanui [2026] KECA 253 (KLR)** wherein the Court observed that-; *“Closely related to publication is the question of actionability and proof of injury, and here Kenyan law retains the classical common-law distinction between libel and slander. Libel, being defamation in permanent form — whether written, printed, broadcast, or digitally published — is actionable per se. In cases of libel, once the plaintiff establishes the other elements of defamation, injury to reputation is presumed, and the plaintiff is not required to prove actual damage in order to be entitled to general damages.”* 1. As earlier noted, by the Defendants' pleadings, their stance is that the impugned publication in its natural or ordinary meaning or otherwise consisted of absolute privilege, qualified privilege, fair comment and justification. Here, I dare say the Court is not convinced by the defences advanced by the Defendants for reasons earlier stated. 2. As concerning the defence of fair comment on a matter of public interest, the Court of Appeal in **Mshindi & another v Ngenye [2024] KECA 1332 (KLR)**, referenced the decision emanating from the Supreme Court of Canada in **Wilradeolia v Simpson (2008) SCC 40** wherein the Court succinctly set out the requirements for a statement to be regarded as fair comment, as follows, that-; *“39. ……..:“* *a. The comment must be on a matter of public interest.* *a. The comment must be based on fact.* *b. The comment though it can include inferences of fact must be recognizable as a comment.* *c. The comment must satisfy the following objective test: could any person honestly express the opinion on the proved facts.* *d. Even though the comment satisfies the objective test, the defence can be deflated if the plaintiff proves that the defendant was actuated by express malice.* *The defence of fair comment will therefore, avail where comments are made and not statements of fact. The comments so made must be on matters that are of public interest and the facts upon which the comments are based must be true, or substantially true.”* 1. Subsequently, **Gatembu, JA** in **Munene v Gisesa & another [2025] KECA 2115 (KLR)** while equally addressing himself to the defence of fair comment, cited the Supreme Court of England decision of **Spiller vs. Joseph [2010] UKSC 53; [2011] 1 A.C.852** where it was observed that-; *“6 …….the elements that a person relying on the defence of fair comment needs to establish thus: the comment must be on a matter of public interest; the comment must be recognizable as comment, as distinct from an imputation of fact; the comment must be based on facts which are true or protected by privilege; the comment must explicitly or implicitly indicate, at least in general terms, the facts on which it is based; and the comment must be one which could have been made by an honest person, however prejudiced he might be, and however exaggerated or obstinate his views.* 1. Addressing itself to the issue of justification, or qualified privilege, the Court in **Hon. Uhuru Muigai Kenyatta v Baraza Limited [2011] eKLR** the Court observed that: - *“While taking the defence of justification, or qualified privilege in a defamation case, the defendant was required by law to establish the true facts and the plaintiff has no burden to prove the defence raised by the defendant. Once verified, the justification or qualified privilege does not injure the defendant and in any event, the onus that the same is true rests on the defendants to make it a fair publication.”* 1. Meanwhile, **The Code of Conduct for the Practice of Journalism** made under the **Media Council Act** provides that; - *“Accuracy and fairness* *(1) A person subject to this Act shall write a fair, accurate and unbiased story on matters of public interest.* *(2) All sides of the story shall be reported, wherever possible.* *(3) Comments shall be sought from anyone who is mentioned in an unfavorable context and evidence of such attempts to seek the comments shall be kept”.* 1. Here, applying my mind to the above decisions and the Code of Conduct stated above, firstly; the widow to the testator was never called as a witness in these proceedings to shore up the 1st Defendant’s defence of truth, privilege or fair comment. Secondly; it is apparent that while the 1st Defendant may have been aggrieved by the publication in the “Standard” he reserved the right to sue for defamation, if he so wished. His utterances on 01/04/2014, though he asserts were in reply to the said article were unwarranted and unjustified in the circumstances. 1. Thirdly, it necessitates a reminder, that it is settled, that a comment based on falsehoods cannot qualify as fair comment. See **Nation Media Group Limited & another v Alfred N. Mutua [2017] KECA 177 (KLR).** The accusation, advanced by the 1st Defendant that the Plaintiff was a thief, swindler, potential murderer or extortionist were serious allegations that were indubitably false whereas if true would attract penal sanctions within Kenyan law. 2. Fourthly; it is through the 2nd to 4th Defendants platform that the defamatory material was broadcasted or disseminated from. The 1st Defendant was a guest on their show meanwhile the former had control of the broadcast and editorial responsibility in respect of the broadcast material. The fact that the Plaintiff was the subject of the said segment, opportunity ought to have been equally accorded to the Plaintiff to appear alongside the Defendants to defend herself on the matters concerning the broadcast, or attempt to give the plaintiff likewise prominence to deflect the allegations by 1st Defendant. As is, the 1st Defendant’s utterances concerning the plaintiff and broadcast were disseminated as being the truth of which was not the case. 1. Consequently, in view of the above, the Court believes that the Plaintiff’s grievance is merited and that the impugned utterances by the 1st Defendant and contemporaneous broadcast by the 2nd to 4th Defendant dated 01/04/2014 was indeed defamatory of and concerning the Plaintiff, for which, the Defendants are therefore found, jointly and severally liable for defamation. ***Whether the Plaintiff is entitled to an award of damages and if so, the quantum?*** 1. It is well settled that an award of damages is a matter of judicial discretion. In **C A M v Royal Media Services Limited [2013] KECA 178 (KLR),** the Court of Appeal stated that:- *“No case is like the other. In the exercise of discretion to award damages for defamation, the court has wide latitude. The factors for consideration in the exercise of that discretion as enumerated in many decisions including the guidelines in Jones v Pollard (1997) EMLR 233-243 include objective features of the libel itself, such as its gravity, its province, the circulation of the medium in which it is published and any repetition; subjective effect on the Plaintiff’s feelings not only from the prominence itself but from the Defendant’s conduct thereafter both up to and including the trial itself; matters tending to mitigate damages for example, publication of an apology; matters tending to reduce damages; vindication of the Plaintiff’s reputation past and future.”* 1. In the case of **Joseph Njogu Kamunge v Charles Muriuki Gachari [2016] eKLR, Mativo J.** (as he then was) cited the case of **John v MGM Ltd (1996) 1 ALL E.R.** the English Court of Appeal held: - *“The successful plaintiff in a defamation action is entitled to recover the general compensatory damages such sum as will compensate him for the wrong he has suffered. That must compensate him for damages to his reputation, vindicate his name, and take account of the distress, hurt and humiliation which the defamatory publication caused...* *Exemplary damages on the other hand had gone beyond compensation and are meant to “punish” the defendant. Aggravated damages will be ordered against a defendant who acts out of improper motive e.g. where it is attracted by malice; insistence on a flurry defence of justification or failure to apologize.”* 1. Here, it is not in doubt that the impugned publication touched on the Plaintiff’s integrity, honour and reputation by demeaning her before right thinking members of the society. Further, the impugned article potentially had the effect of wide reach among viewers of KTN.It would equally seem that the 2nd Defendant has to date not retracted the broadcast or tendered an apology to the Plaintiff yet the imputation created by the article must have affected the Plaintiff’s reputation. 2. Nevertheless, it is also apparent that the Plaintiff did not call any evidence to shore up the reputational damage and or injury as a result of the broadcast. In **Patani & another** (supra)concerning the need to call third party evidence, the Court observed that-; *“The other issue for our consideration is whether the Judge erred in finding it was imperative to call a third party to prove the appellants claim for defamation. In principle, defamation is actionable per se. This does not mean the ingredients of the tort must not be proved. It simply means you must prove the elements of the tort of defamation; what need not be proved is the damage suffered. If no damage is proved, a claimant may be entitled to nominal damages.’’* 1. I have earlier in this judgment set out the respective parties’ submissions on the question of damages and will thus not belabor by restating the same at this juncture. Again, I repeat that no evidence was presented instructive towards reputational loss damage or harm by the Plaintiffon accord of the impugned broadcast. Therefore, in light of the above finding of fact that the impugned article was indeed defamatory of the Plaintiff and given her status as an Advocate of the High Court, this Court is only inclined to award **nominal damages, to wit, in the sum of Kshs. 600,000/-** **as justified for the Plaintiff, in the circumstances.** 1. On aggravated and exemplary damages, in the case of **Mansion v Associated Newspapers LTD (1965) 2 ALL ER 954 at 957** the English court stated that exemplary damages may be awarded: - *“In a case in which a newspaper quite deliberately published a statement which it either knows to be false or which it publishes recklessly, carelessly, whether it be true or false.”* 1. Further, as to the question of exemplary and aggravated damages, the Court of Appeal in **Matumbi (supra)** pithily put it that-; *34. We now turn to the award of exemplary damages. The High Court awarded exemplary damages primarily on the basis that the appellant acted maliciously and failed to apologise. While those factors may be relevant in considering aggravated damages, they do not, without more, justify an award of exemplary damages. As we have explained, exemplary damages are punitive in nature and are reserved for exceptional cases falling within narrowly defined categories, such as where the defendant’s conduct was calculated to yield profit exceeding any compensatory award, or where the conduct was oppressive, arbitrary, or unconstitutional.* *35………….* *36. In our view, the learned Judge erred in principle by treating malice, without more, as sufficient to ground an award of exemplary damages. That approach risks collapsing the carefully maintained distinction between aggravated and exemplary damages and expands the latter beyond its proper doctrinal limits. Consistent with Kenyan and comparative authority, the award of exemplary damages in this case cannot be sustained.* *37.We accordingly set aside the award of exemplary damages in its entirety…’’* 1. In light of the above dicta and upon consideration of the circumstance and the nominal award in general damages to the Plaintiff, I decline the invitation to award exemplary damages. In any event, any humiliation, distress, injury to reputation, insult, outrage or malice of the broadcast, that would be the purport of an award of exemplary and or aggravated damages, in my view, has been sufficiently compensated by the nominal award of damages. 2. The Plaintiff also seeks a permanent injunction to refrain 1st Defendant from further talking or covering about the Plaintiff or her firm regarding the subject matter. However, the Court notes that the alleged defamatory statement was published over twelve (12) years ago, and it is unlikely that the defamation will be repeated. Furthermore, granting such an injunction would unjustifiably infringe on the Defendants’ constitutional right to freedom of expression. Therefore, the request for a permanent injunction is declined. **Final Disposition** 1. Accordingly, the Court finds and holds the Defendants jointly and severally liable for the tort of defamation against the Plaintiff. Consequently judgment is entered in favour of the Plaintiff against the Defendants jointly and or severally in general damages in the sum of **Kshs. 600,000/-.** The above amount shall attract interest at Court rates from the date of this judgment until full settlement. 1. On the matter of costs, taking into account that the cause of action here arose from a singular action, applying my mind to the provision of **Section 27** of the **Civil Procedure Act**, I award consolidated costs of the two suits in favour of the Plaintiff, to be borne by the Defendants. **Orders accordingly.** **Delivered Dated and Signed at Nairobi this 30th Day of July 2026.** **……………………….** **JANET MULWA.** **JUDGE**