Kenya Case Law

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

Mwau v Standard Limited & 2 others

Mwau v Standard Limited & 2 others [2025] KEHC 3825 (KLR)

Court

High Court

Case number

Civil Suit 4 of 2005

Judge

JN Mulwa

The court found that the publications by the 1st Defendant were defamatory of the Plaintiff because they explicitly referred to him by name and photograph, imputed involvement in criminal activity (drug trafficking), and the Defendants failed to establish the defences of truth and fair comment. The malice in the publications was inferred from the reckless manner of publication and the repetition despite being put on notice.

Source excerpt

• Defamation
• Libel
• Media Liability
• Damages Assessment
• Malice In Publication

Mungatana v Nation Media Group Limited

Mungatana v Nation Media Group Limited [2024] KEHC 3380 (KLR)

Court

High Court

Case number

Civil Case 381 of 2008

Judge

AN Ongeri

The court found that the defendant published statements that were defamatory of the plaintiff, portraying him as untrustworthy and inconsistent regarding the taxation of MPs' allowances. The plaintiff's evidence was uncontroverted as the defendant did not call any witnesses or deny publication. The court held that the elements of libel were established: the statements were published to third parties, were false, and harmed the plaintiff's reputation. However, the court noted that the plaintiff continued to hold elective office after the publication, indicating limited actual harm. The court f…

Source excerpt

• Defamation
• Libel
• Damages For Defamation
• Malice In Publication

Mwangi & another v Hashi Empex Limited

Mwangi & another v Hashi Empex Limited [2024] KECA 92 (KLR)

Court

Court of Appeal

Case number

Civil Appeal 131 of 2017

Judges

HM Okwengu, A Ali-Aroni, JM Mativo

The Court of Appeal found that the publication by the appellants, linking the respondent to Felicien Kabuga—a notorious international fugitive associated with the Rwandan genocide—was defamatory in its natural and ordinary meaning. The appellants admitted publication but offered no justification, evidence, or apology. The court held that corporate defamation is actionable per se and does not require proof of actual damage, especially where the publication is likely to injure business reputation. The evidence showed the respondent's business suffered, including loss of a major contract in Rwan…

Source excerpt

• Defamation
• Corporate Reputation
• Damages Assessment
• Libel Action
• Malice In Publication
• Special Damages

Nation Media Group Limited & another v Gituma & another

Nation Media Group Limited & another v Gituma & another [2023] KEHC 416 (KLR)

Court

High Court

Case number

Civil Appeal 28A of 2020

Judge

EM Muriithi

The High Court found a newspaper report defamatory, reduced general damages from Ksh.6 million to Ksh.1 million, and set aside aggravated damages.

• Defamation
• Libel
• Damages Assessment
• Malice In Publication
• Qualified Privilege
• Appellate Review

Kibui v People Limited & another

Kibui v People Limited & another [2022] KEHC 15311 (KLR)

Court

High Court

Case number

Civil Case 616 of 2006

Judge

JK Sergon

The court found that the plaintiff established all elements of defamation: the impugned publication was defamatory, referred to the plaintiff, was published by the defendants, was false, and was made maliciously. The defendants admitted publication but failed to adduce any evidence or call witnesses to support their pleaded defences of justification or qualified privilege. The court accepted the plaintiff's evidence that the publication harmed his reputation, caused distress, and affected his professional and personal life. The law presumes damage in libel cases, and the defendants' failure t…

Source excerpt

• Defamation
• Libel
• Damages For Reputation
• Malice In Publication
• Injunctive Relief
• Media Law

Wekesa v Headlink Publishers Limited

Wekesa v Headlink Publishers Limited [2022] KEHC 11208 (KLR)

Court

High Court

Case number

Civil Suit 297 of 2015

Judge

JK Sergon

The High Court found Headlink Publishers liable for defamation over a newspaper publication about Moni Wekesa, and awarded damages plus an injunction.

• Defamation
• Libel
• Malice In Publication
• Damages For Reputation
• Injunctions
• Media Law

Olunga v Weekely Citizen & 2 others

Olunga v Weekely Citizen & 2 others [2022] KEHC 9834 (KLR)

Court

High Court

Case number

Civil Appeal 569 of 2017

Judge

JN Mulwa

The High Court allowed a defamation appeal, finding a Weekly Citizen article falsely imputed theft and embezzlement to the appellant and awarding damages.

• Defamation
• Malice In Publication
• Damages For Defamation
• False Publication
• Media Liability
• Media-law

Olunga v Citizen & 2 others

Olunga v Citizen & 2 others [2022] KEHC 13570 (KLR)

Court

High Court

Case number

Civil Appeal 569 of 2017

Judge

JN Mulwa

High Court allowed a defamation appeal over a newspaper article that imputed theft of school funds to the appellant, awarding general and aggravated damages.

• Defamation
• Libel
• Malice In Publication
• Damages For Defamation
• Burden Of Proof
• Media Law

Shadrack v The Standard Group Limited & another

Shadrack v The Standard Group Limited & another [2022] KEHC 628 (KLR)

Court

High Court

Case number

Civil Case 247 of 2016

Judge

JK Sergon

The court found that the plaintiff had established all the elements of defamation: the publication was made by the defendants, referred to the plaintiff, was false and defamatory, and was actuated by malice. The defendants failed to prove the truth of the allegations or that the publication was a fair comment based on true facts. The court held that the plaintiff was not given a fair opportunity to respond to the allegations, and the defendants did not exercise due diligence or proper investigation before publication. The publication lowered the plaintiff's reputation in the eyes of the publi…

Source excerpt

• Defamation
• Libel
• Malice In Publication
• Damages Assessment
• Media Law
• Fair Comment