Musyoka v Muia (Civil Case E031 of 2025) [2026] KEHC 7632 (KLR) (28 May 2026) (Ruling)

Musyoka v Muia (Civil Case E031 of 2025) [2026] KEHC 7632 (KLR) (28 May 2026) (Ruling) Neutral citation: [2026] KEHC 7632 (KLR) Republic of Kenya In the High Court at Machakos Civil Case E031 of 2025 EN Maina, J May 28, 2026 Between Richard Mulwa Musyoka Plaintiff and John Songa Muia Defendant Ruling 1.This is a ruling on the two (2) applications filed by the Plaintiff. The first application is dated 3rd November 2025 and was filed simultaneously with the Plaint. The same sought an interim and a temporary injunction to restrain the Defendant from publishing the words ‘ujinga pia inaua’, which words the Plaintiff considers defamatory of himself, pending hearing and determination of the application and the suit respectively. The Plaintiff also sought an order to compel the Defendant to delete the impugned words and to publish an apology in the same forum, their WhatsApp group, within 72 hours of the temporary injunction being granted. 2.In the second application, a Notice of Motion dated 13th December 2025, the applicant seeks leave to bring contempt proceedings against the Defendant, ostensibly for defiance and disrespect towards the authority and dignity of this court. The Plaintiff acted in person. 3.Both applications were accompanied by written submissions. In regard to the first application, the Plaintiff submitted as follows:A.IntroductionThese submissions support the Notice of Motion dated ….2025 seeking interlocutory injunction to restrain continuing defamation.B.Issues for determination(1)Whether the Applicant has established a prima facie case.(2)Whether the Applicant will suffer irreparable harm(3)Where the balance of convenience lies.(4)(Giella v Cassman Brown [1973] EA 358)C.Legal Principles(1)Article 28 & 31 where every person has inherent dignity and right to privacy.(2)Article 33(3) where freedom of expression does not extend to defamation.(3)Defamation Act Cap 36, s3 –defines libel and slander.(4)Order 40 Rules 1 & 2 CPR which defines injunctions to restrain threated injury.(5)Mutunga Rules r. 23 – interim relief to preserve constitutional rights.(6)High Court (organization and Administration) Rules 2016 – Rule 4: court to ensure fair and efficient administration of justice.D.Authorities on Defamation in Electronic Media1.SMW v ZWM [2015] eKLR – WhatsApp and Facebook publications are actionable defamation.2.CM v Board of Trustees of Kabarak University [2021] eKLR – court granted injunction for online defamation.3.Musikari Kombo v Royal Media Services [2018] eKLR – Reputation is sacred right protected by law.4.Nation Media Group v KJaphet Kitur [2018] – Electronic dissemination is libel in permanent form.5.Alfred Mutua v Standard Group [2017] eKLR – aggravated damages warranted for malicious publications.E.Application of law:1.The defendant’s publication “ujinga pia inaua” imputes stupidity, clearly defamatory2.Published in writing on a WhatsApp group (permanent and public.3.Malicious intent evidence form context and refusal to retract4.Reputation harm is irreparable (SMW v ZWM)5.Balance of convenience favours protecting the Applicants dignity.F.Reliefs sought:1.Temporary injunction restraining the defendant2.Deletion of defamatory post within the shortest time practicable.3.General, special, aggravated exemplary and punitive damages for defamation.4.Apology within seven days5.Costs in the cause.G.ConclusionThe Applicant satisfies all tests under Giella v Cassman and relevant case law and grant the orders sought. 4.For the second application, the applicant filed submissions dated 13th December 2025 in which he stated inter alia: that the respondent forwarded the Court order dated 5th November 2025 via WhatsApp, hence demonstrating knowledge thereof, yet on the same day the respondent sent defiant messages, to wit, “bring it on am also a complainant” and a vulgar abusive word (vokovu” – equivalent to “[Particulars Withheld] off” in direct response to the proceedings; that the same conduct amounted to willful disobedience that scandalizes or lowers the authority of this court. 5.The Plaintiff/Applicant cited the following cases in support of the contempt of court application: Samuel M. N. Mweru & Others v National Land Commission & 2 others [2020] eKLR. Sheila Cassatt Issenberg & Anor v Antony Machatha Kinyanjui [2021] eKLR. Christine Wangari Gachege v Elizabeth Wanjiru Evans & 11 others [2014] eKLR. Shimmers Plaza Limited v National Bank of Kenya limited [2015] eKLR (Court of Appeal). 6.The Plaintiff did not file any other submissions following the directions of this court that the applications would be heard together by way of written submission. He did however file a further affidavit, sworn on 13th December, in respect to the application for contempt. To that affidavit he has annexed screenshots of the Defendant’s WhatsApp posts with the words “vokovu” which according to him are vulgar and defamatory. The said words were allegedly published following service of the interim orders granted to him, (the applicant), by this court on 15th December 2025. 7.The Defendant opposed the applications vide replying affidavits sworn by himself on 23rd December 2025 and 22nd January 2026 respectively. Thereafter, Mr. Munyaka, learned Counsel for the Defendant, filed written submissions in respect to the first application but for the application for contempt, Counsel elected to rely on the replying affidavit and did not file any submissions. I need not reproduce Counsel’s submissions here. 8.What this court granted to the Plaintiff on 15th December 2025 was an interim injunction pending hearing and determination in respect to that application. In regard to the application for a temporary injunction the issues for determination would therefore be:i.Whether the Plaintiff has established a prima facie case with a likelihood of success and;ii.Whether he stands to suffer irreparable damage which cannot be compensated by way of damages.iii.Whether the balance of convenience tilts in his favour.In regard to the second application the issue for determination would be whether the applicant has established sufficient and grounds for grant of the leave. Analysis and determination 9.I have carefully considered the applications, the submissions by both sides, the law and the applicable legal principles. Whereas at this stage it must desist from making any conclusions regarding the merits of the claim, the court must be satisfied that this is one of the clearest cases before it can grant the order sought. This is because in defamation cases the court must be careful to balance the Applicant’s reputation and the Respondent’s right to freedom of expression. 10.The words complained of in this case are said to have been published in a WhatsApp group where both the Applicant and Respondent are members. The Applicant alleges he posted the words “Aki naona wisdom will one day kill me. Teknoloji” to which the Respondent replied “foolishness also kills”. According to the Applicant he interpreted these words to mean that he was foolish, stupid, unintelligent and unworthy of respect.” The pleadings are yet to close so the Respondent is yet to explain the context in which he published those words. Be that as it may, whether or not those words are defamatory is a matter of law which can only be determined once the case is heard fully. For now I can only state that this is not one of the clearest cases as would warrant a gagging order and that the Applicant has to await the full hearing. As of now a prima facie case with a likelihood of success has not been established. In any event the harm which the Applicant is likely to suffer is one that can be compensated by an award for damages and indeed the Applicant has craved general and exemplary damages in his plaint. The first application therefore fails. 11.Neither can the second application, for leave to bring contempt of court proceedings succeed. The reason for this is simple: the word “vokovu” which the Applicant interprets to mean “[Particulars Withheld] off”, may be vulgar but is not defamatory as would warrant this court to find that the Respondent continued to defame the Applicant even after the interim “gag order” was granted by this court. 12.Let the Defendant/Respondent file his defence so that the case can be heard in the shortest time possible. 13.Costs are in the discretion of the court and the general rule is that they should follow the course. However, in the circumstances of this case, the order that commends itself to me is that the costs of the two applications should be in the cause.Orders accordingly. RULING SIGNED, DATED AND DELIVERED VIRTUALLY VIA MICROSOFT TEAMS ON THIS 28TH DAY OF MAY, 2026.E. N. MAINAJUDGEIn the presence of:Mr. Munyaka for the RespondentNo appearance for the ApplicantMary - Court Assistant/Interpreter