[2019] KEHC 8102 (KLR)

[2019] KEHC 8102 (KLR)

The High Court found that the publication by the appellant merely informed the public and clients that the respondent had ceased to be an employee and did not, in its ordinary meaning, impute criminality or dishonesty. The court held that the appellant had a legitimate business interest in notifying its clients of...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2019] KEHC 8102 (KLR)
Parties
Appellant: Security Group Kenya Limited; Respondent: Samuel Itotia
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Eldoret
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Judgment Date
15 March 2019
Case Number
Civil Appeal 150 of 2016
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Judgment
Outcome
Appeal allowed. Judgment of the trial court set aside. Respondent to bear costs of the appeal.
Judges
DO Ohungo
Legal Topics
Defamation, Libel, Malice in Defamation, Damages Assessment, Employment Termination, Burden of Proof
Source Language
english
Tort Law Defamation Libel Malice in Defamation Damages Assessment Employment Termination Burden of Proof

Source-derived case record

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

Parties

Security Group Kenya Limited

Appellant

Samuel Itotia

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appellant's publication was defamatory towards the respondent.
  2. 2 Whether the respondent proved the essential elements of defamation on a balance of probabilities.
  3. 3 Whether the damages awarded by the trial court were justified and commensurate with the loss sustained.

Ratio Decidendi

The High Court found that the publication by the appellant merely informed the public and clients that the respondent had ceased to be an employee and did not, in its ordinary meaning, impute criminality or dishonesty. The court held that the appellant had a legitimate business interest in notifying its clients of the respondent's departure, especially given his former managerial position. The respondent failed to prove that the publication was actuated by malice or that it caused actual harm to his reputation or business. The evidence presented did not establish the essential elements of defamation on a balance of probabilities. Consequently, the trial court erred in finding the...

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed. Judgment of the trial court set aside. Respondent to bear costs of the appeal.

Orders

  • The judgment of the trial court is set aside.
  • The respondent's suit is dismissed.