JAMES FRANCIS MBATIA V
The 1st respondent uttered false and defamatory statements about the petitioner, which were published by the 2nd and 6th respondents without balancing the story or seeking the petitioner’s response, thereby maliciously damaging his reputation. The petitioner failed to prove special damages but is entitled to general damages and a public apology.
Source excerpt
- Defamation
- Damages
- Journalistic ethics
- Publication liability