[2018] KEHC 2498 (KLR)

[2018] KEHC 2498 (KLR)

The court found that the tweets, posts, and statements in question portrayed the plaintiffs in a negative light and were made in reference to them by the 1st respondent using the platforms of the 2nd to 5th respondents. The veracity of the statements, specifically whether they were false, could not be determined at...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2018] KEHC 2498 (KLR)
Parties
Plaintiff: Whispering Palms Estate Ltd; Plaintiff: Afrison Export Import Ltd; Plaintiff: Huelands Limited; Plaintiff: Francis Mburu Mungai; Respondent: Cyprian Nyakundi; Respondent: Twitter; Respondent: Google; Respondent: YouTube; Respondent: Facebook
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Commercial Courts)
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Civil Suit 113 of 2018
Procedural Posture
Civil Suit / Ruling on Interlocutory Injunction Application
Outcome
interlocutory injunction granted against 1st respondent; each party to bear own costs
Judges
JK Sergon
Legal Topics
Defamation, Interlocutory Injunctions, Social Media Liability, Publication of False Statements
Source Language
en
Tort Law Civil Procedure Defamation Interlocutory Injunctions Social Media Liability Publication of False Statements

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Downloadable case file Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Whispering Palms Estate Ltd

Plaintiff

Afrison Export Import Ltd

Plaintiff

Huelands Limited

Plaintiff

Francis Mburu Mungai

Plaintiff

Cyprian Nyakundi

Respondent

Twitter

Respondent

Google

Respondent

YouTube

Respondent

Facebook

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Suit / Ruling on Interlocutory Injunction Application

  1. 1 Whether the tweets/posts/publications by the 1st respondent were defamatory of the plaintiffs.
  2. 2 Whether the plaintiffs have established a prima facie case for grant of interlocutory injunction.
  3. 3 Whether the social media platforms (2nd to 5th respondents) can be restrained from publication or compelled to remove the alleged defamatory material.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the tweets, posts, and statements in question portrayed the plaintiffs in a negative light and were made in reference to them by the 1st respondent using the platforms of the 2nd to 5th respondents. The veracity of the statements, specifically whether they were false, could not be determined at this interlocutory stage as investigations into the underlying land transaction were ongoing. However, the court held that the publications could not be justified at this stage and appeared intended to bring disrepute to the plaintiffs before the facts were established. The plaintiffs thus established a prima facie case for defamation. The court also noted the practical...

Court Disposition

interlocutory injunction granted against 1st respondent; each party to bear own costs

Orders

  • An order of temporary injunction pending the hearing of this suit is issued to restrain the 1st respondent from tweeting/posting, publishing and broadcasting the offensive tweets, posts, words, publications and utterances and the statements attributed to Meshack Onyango Dehay alias Meshack Onyango Dihay which were...
  • Each party to bear its own costs.