[2019] KEHC 6749 (KLR)
The High Court determined that it possesses unlimited original jurisdiction in civil matters, including tort claims such as defamation, pursuant to Article 165(3)(a) of the Constitution. The court found that the orders sought by the plaintiff/applicant—injunctive and compensatory relief—fall squarely within its...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2019] KEHC 6749 (KLR)
- Parties
- Plaintiff: H.E. Zakaria Okoth Obado; Defendant: The Standard Media Group Limited; Defendant: The Nairobian; Defendant: David Odongo
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Civil Suit 218 of 2017
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Suit / Ruling on Preliminary Objection
- Outcome
- preliminary objection dismissed
- Judges
- JK Sergon
- Legal Topics
- Defamation, Injunctions, Jurisdiction of High Court
- Source Language
- en
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
H.E. Zakaria Okoth Obado
Plaintiff
The Standard Media Group Limited
Defendant
The Nairobian
Defendant
David Odongo
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Civil Suit / Ruling on Preliminary Objection
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the High Court has jurisdiction to hear and determine a suit for defamation against the defendants.
- 2 Whether the suit ought to have been instituted under Article 22 of the Constitution.
- 3 Whether the reference to constitutional provisions converts the suit into a constitutional petition.
Ratio Decidendi
The High Court determined that it possesses unlimited original jurisdiction in civil matters, including tort claims such as defamation, pursuant to Article 165(3)(a) of the Constitution. The court found that the orders sought by the plaintiff/applicant—injunctive and compensatory relief—fall squarely within its jurisdiction. The court further held that the reference to constitutional provisions, such as Articles 22, 23, and 34, does not strip the court of jurisdiction nor does it necessitate that the suit be brought as a constitutional petition under Article 22. The preliminary objection raised by the defendants/respondents, which challenged the court's jurisdiction on these grounds, was...
Court Disposition
preliminary objection dismissed
Orders
- The Notice of Preliminary Objection is dismissed with costs abiding the outcome of the suit.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
25 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA
AT NAIROBI
CIVIL SUIT NO. 218 OF 2017
H.E. ZAKARIA OKOTH OBADO..........................................PLAINTIFF/APPLICANT
-VERSUS-
THE STANDARD MEDIA GROUP LIMITED.......1ST DEFENDANT/RESPONDENT
THE NAIROBIAN......................................................2ND DEFENDANT/RESPONDENT
DAVID ODONGO.......................................................3RD DEFENDANT/RESPONDENT
RULING
1. The plaintiff/applicant herein has brought a Notice of Motion dated 10th October, 2017. The same is supported by the grounds set out on the face thereof and the facts deponed in the affidavit sworn by the plaintiff/applicant himself. The plaintiff/ applicant is seeking an injunction against the defendants/ respondents in respect to certain publications made by them.
2. The defendants/respondents have now raised a Notice of Preliminary Objection against the suit. Parties have filed their respective written submissions on the same.
3. The plaintiff/applicant instituted this suit against the defendants/respondents, seeking for inter alia a permanent and mandatory injunction respectively, together with damages for publications made between 29th September, 2017 and 5th October, 2017 by the defendants/respondents against the plaintiff/applicant, and which publications are said to be false and defamatory in nature.
4. I considered the arguments placed before this court over the Preliminary Objection raised by the defendants/respondents.
5. The defendants/respondents have challenged the jurisdiction of this court to entertain the matter by virtue of Articles 22, 23, 34 (b) and 165 (3) (b) of the Constitution; and on the basis that the suit has not been instituted within the provisions of Article 22 of the Constitution.
6. On his part, the plaintiff/applicant has taken the position that the law on defamation and civil procedure confer jurisdictionon this court.
7. I have looked at the aforementioned constitutional provisions.Articles 22and 23 by and large concern the Bill of Rights whereas Article 34 provides for freedom of the media. Article 165 (3) (b) in truth grants this court jurisdiction to determine questions of infringement of a right or freedom under the Bill of Rights. It is apparent that there is nothing to point towards a lack of jurisdiction of this court or the fact that it was necessary for the suit to be instituted under Article 22 above. The orders/reliefs sought are injunctive and compensatory in nature. Furthermore, both the suit and application are matters under the tort of defamation, which this court has the unlimited jurisdiction to entertain pursuant to Article 165 (3) (a) of the Constitution. The mere reference to constitutional provisions does not in any way make the plaintiff’s/applicant’s suit a constitutional petition.
8. In the premises, the Notice of Preliminary Objection lacks merit and the same is hereby dismissed with costs abiding theoutcome of this suit.
Dated, Signed and Delivered at Nairobi this 2nd day of May, 2019.
..........................
J.K. SERGON
JUDGE
In the presence of:
................................. for the Plaintiff/Applicant
........................ for the Defendants/Respondents