[2017] KEHC 9631 (KLR)

[2017] KEHC 9631 (KLR)

The court found that the Defendant published a defamatory article about the Plaintiff, a prominent jurist and public figure, without verifying the facts or seeking the Plaintiff's side of the story. The article falsely implied that the Plaintiff had defied court orders and was unfit for public office, which was not supported by the actual court records. The Defendant's failure to retract or apologize, coupled with the publication of further false material, demonstrated malice and recklessness. The court held that all elements of defamation were proved: the statements were defamatory, published, and malicious, and they lowered the Plaintiff's reputation in the eyes of right-thinking...

Citation
[2017] KEHC 9631 (KLR)
Parties
Plaintiff: Dr. W M M; Defendant: The Standard Group Limited
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Judgment Date
24 October 2017
Case Number
Civil Case 160 of 2015
Procedural Posture
Civil Case / Judgment
Outcome
Judgment for the Plaintiff.
Judges
BT Jaden
Legal Topics
Defamation, Libel, Damages Assessment, Injunctions, Media Law, Malice
Source Language
English
Tort Law Defamation Libel Damages Assessment Injunctions Media Law Malice

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 4 Authorities cited 23 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Dr. W M M

Plaintiff

The Standard Group Limited

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Case / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Defendant published defamatory statements concerning the Plaintiff.
  2. 2 Whether the publication was malicious and without justification.
  3. 3 Whether the Plaintiff is entitled to general and exemplary damages for libel.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the Defendant published a defamatory article about the Plaintiff, a prominent jurist and public figure, without verifying the facts or seeking the Plaintiff's side of the story. The article falsely implied that the Plaintiff had defied court orders and was unfit for public office, which was not supported by the actual court records. The Defendant's failure to retract or apologize, coupled with the publication of further false material, demonstrated malice and recklessness. The court held that all elements of defamation were proved: the statements were defamatory, published, and malicious, and they lowered the Plaintiff's reputation in the eyes of right-thinking...

Court Disposition

Judgment for the Plaintiff.

Orders

  • General damages for libel awarded at Ksh.10,000,000.
  • Exemplary damages awarded at Ksh.2,000,000.