Kenya Case Law

Meru Central Dairy Co-operative Union v M’Iti

Meru Central Dairy Co-operative Union v M’Iti [2025] KEHC 10321 (KLR)

Court

High Court

Case number

Civil Case E007 of 2025

Judge

HM Nyaga

The court found that the applicant is a reputable, licensed milk processor whose products are certified by relevant authorities. The respondent published statements on social media platforms alleging that the applicant's products were adulterated and dangerous, without providing any evidence to substantiate these claims. The court held that the statements were unarguably defamatory and there was no indication of a valid defence such as justification or fair comment. The respondent failed to respond to the application, and the applicant demonstrated that the publications had caused panic among…

Source excerpt

• Defamation
• Interlocutory Injunctions
• Freedom Of Expression
• Reputation
• Social Media Publications

Saini v Nation Media Group Plc

Saini v Nation Media Group Plc [2025] KEHC 9893 (KLR)

Court

High Court

Case number

Civil Case E047 of 2025

Judge

JN Mulwa

The High Court granted a temporary injunction in a defamation dispute, restraining further allegedly defamatory publications, but declined a mandatory apology order.

• Defamation
• Interlocutory Injunctions
• Freedom Of Expression
• Media Law
• Interlocutory-injunctions
• Media-law

Mbarire v Nation Media Group Plc

Mbarire v Nation Media Group Plc [2025] KEHC 9239 (KLR)

Court

High Court

Case number

Civil Case E093 of 2024

Judge

JN Mulwa

The High Court dismissed a defamation-based application for temporary and mandatory injunctions, finding no prima facie case or special circumstances.

• Defamation
• Interlocutory Injunctions
• Freedom Of Expression
• Mandatory Injunctions
• Interlocutory-injunctions
• Mandatory-injunctions

Muchiri & another v Attorney General & 6 others; Selection Panel for Appointment of the Chairperson and Members of the Media Council of Kenya (Interested Party)

Muchiri & another v Attorney General & 6 others; Selection Panel for Appointment of the Chairperson and Members of the Media Council of Kenya (Interested Party) [2025] KEHC 8929 (KLR)

Court

High Court

Case number

Constitutional Petition E040 of 2023

Judge

EC Mwita

The court found that the petitioners failed to demonstrate that sections 7 and 14 of the Media Council Act, 2013 were unconstitutional. Section 7(3), which limits nominating organizations for the selection panel to thirteen, was held not to amount to negative discrimination, as a manageable panel size is necessary for effective governance and does not violate Article 27. The court held that the selection process provided for adequate public participation through publication of vacancies and shortlists, and that any qualified person could apply. Allegations of conflict of interest were not sub…

Source excerpt

• Media Regulation
• Public Participation
• Conflict Of Interest
• Judicial Review
• Freedom Of Expression

Kabu v Nyaga

Kabu v Nyaga [2025] KEHC 8682 (KLR)

Court

High Court

Case number

Civil Suit E286 of 2024

Judge

JN Mulwa

The court found that the plaintiff had established a prima facie case that the defendant published defamatory statements about him, which were admitted by the defendant. The court held that continued publication of such statements would cause irreparable harm to the plaintiff's reputation, which monetary damages could not adequately compensate. The court recognized the special caution required in granting interlocutory injunctions in defamation cases but found that the circumstances were exceptional and warranted protection of the plaintiff's reputation pending trial. The court also acknowled…

Source excerpt

• Defamation
• Interlocutory Injunctions
• Prima Facie Case
• Irreparable Harm
• Freedom Of Expression

Bogle v Samwel

Bogle v Samwel [2025] KEHC 8303 (KLR)

Court

High Court

Case number

Civil Case E040 of 2025

Judge

JN Mulwa

The court found that the plaintiff established a prima facie case with a probability of success, as the impugned podcasts were defamatory and caused her mental anguish and professional harm. The continued publication of the material would result in irreparable injury to her reputation, which could not be adequately compensated by damages. The court recognized the existence of special and exceptional circumstances warranting the grant of an interlocutory injunction. While freedom of expression is constitutionally protected, it is not absolute and must be balanced against the right to reputatio…

Source excerpt

• Defamation
• Interlocutory Injunctions
• Freedom Of Expression
• Reputation Protection

Speaker of the County Assembly of Siaya County v Nation Media Group Limited

Speaker of the County Assembly of Siaya County v Nation Media Group Limited [2025] KEHC 8315 (KLR)

Court

High Court

Case number

Petition E245 of 2021

Judge

LN Mugambi

The Court found that the Petitioner failed to establish that the information published by the Respondent was untrue or misleading, as required under Article 35(2) of the Constitution. The publication was based on an official EACC report documenting an inquiry into allegations of abuse of office and fraudulent acquisition of public funds by members of the County Assembly. The Court held that such reporting constitutes fair comment made in the public interest and is not malicious or unfounded. Furthermore, the Petitioner did not demonstrate that it made a direct request to the Respondent for co…

Source excerpt

• Access To Information
• Freedom Of Expression
• Media Responsibility
• Right Of Reply
• Public Interest Reporting

Trompell v Ochs

Trompell v Ochs [2025] KEHC 7327 (KLR)

Court

High Court

Case number

Civil Suit E030 of 2021

Judge

OA Sewe

The court found that the defendant published statements about the plaintiff on a publicly accessible website, which were set out with reasonable precision and referred to the plaintiff. The words were objectively defamatory, portraying the plaintiff as dishonest, incompetent, and of unsound mind, and were published to third parties. The defendant failed to prove the truth of the statements or that they were fair comment on matters of public interest. The language used was disproportionate and malicious, as inferred from the choice of words and the defendant's failure to apologize or retract t…

Source excerpt

• Defamation
• Libel
• Damages For Reputation
• Malice In Publication
• Fair Comment Defence
• Freedom Of Expression

Kinyanjui v Kenya Films Classifications Board (KFCB) & another

Kinyanjui v Kenya Films Classifications Board (KFCB) & another [2025] KEHC 5814 (KLR)

Court

High Court

Case number

Petition E119 of 2024

Judge

LN Mugambi

The Court found that the Films and Stage Plays Act defines 'film' and 'film making' broadly enough to include audio-visual recordings made on smartphones and uploaded to social media. However, the requirement for licensing and prior approval of all such content is impractical, outdated, and unenforceable in the context of modern technology and mass user-generated content. The Court held that while the 1st Respondent retains a statutory mandate to protect the public, especially vulnerable groups, from harmful content, this mandate does not extend to demanding licensing fees for social media up…

Source excerpt

• Freedom Of Expression
• Regulation Of Social Media
• Statutory Interpretation
• Administrative Action
• Media Regulation
• Licensing Of Audio Visual Content

Kenya National Human Rights Commission & 2 others v Gachagua & 2 others; Judicial Service Commission & 2 others (Interested Parties)

Kenya National Human Rights Commission & 2 others v Gachagua & 2 others; Judicial Service Commission & 2 others (Interested Parties) [2025] KEHC 5573 (KLR)

Court

High Court

Case number

Petition E115 of 2024

Judge

AB Mwamuye

The court found that the Petitioners had 'constitutionalized' what was essentially a dispute that could be addressed through ordinary civil proceedings or by complaint to the Ethics and Anti-Corruption Commission or Judicial Service Commission. The doctrines of constitutional avoidance and exhaustion require that where alternative statutory mechanisms exist, they must be exhausted before invoking the High Court's constitutional jurisdiction. The Petitioners failed to demonstrate why these alternative avenues should not be pursued first. The court held that the Petition did not disclose a just…

Source excerpt

• Judicial Independence
• Leadership And Integrity
• Constitutional Avoidance
• Exhaustion Of Remedies
• Freedom Of Expression
• Public Officer Conduct