Automated Summary
Key Facts
The case involves Barbara Lynne (a.k.a. Didi Ananda Ruchira) and Abha Light Foundation suing Standard Group Limited for defamation after the defendant published an article in the Sunday Standard on 1st May 2011 titled 'Concern over NGO'S HIV/ Aids treatment,' alleging corruption. The defendant argued the court lacked jurisdiction under Article 34(2) of the Constitution, which prohibits state interference with media. The plaintiffs countered that the High Court has jurisdiction under constitutional provisions like Article 160. The court dismissed the defendant's preliminary objection, affirming its authority to hear defamation claims.
Issues
The primary issue was whether the High Court has jurisdiction to hear a defamation case against the media under the Constitution of Kenya 2010. The defendant argued that Article 34(2) bars the court from interfering in media-related disputes, while the plaintiffs asserted jurisdiction based on Articles 160, 165, and the need to balance media freedom with individual rights to dignity and freedom from defamation. The court ruled that the High Court retains jurisdiction in civil matters, including defamation, and that Article 34(2) does not oust its authority.
Holdings
The High Court has jurisdiction to preside over civil matters including the tort of defamation. The Defendant's argument that Article 34(2) of the Constitution ousts the court's jurisdiction is without merit. The Preliminary Objection is dismissed with costs to the plaintiffs.
Remedies
The High Court dismissed the defendant's preliminary objection to jurisdiction and ruled that the court has the authority to hear the defamation case. The court further determined that the plaintiffs are entitled to pursue their claim and awarded costs in their favor.
Legal Principles
- The court emphasized that its jurisdiction must be exercised in accordance with the Constitution and laws, as outlined in Article 259, which mandates interpreting the Constitution to promote its purposes, values, and principles while advancing the Rule of Law. This principle was central to the court's assertion of jurisdiction over the defamation claim.
- The court used a purposive approach to constitutional interpretation, requiring that all articles be read together and not in isolation. This method was critical in balancing media freedom (Article 34) with individual rights to dignity and protection from defamation, as enshrined in the Bill of Rights.
Precedent Name
- The Owners of the Motor Vessel 'Lillian S' Vs Caltex Oil (Kenya) Ltd
- Samuel Kamau Macharia Vs KCB & 2 Others
Cited Statute
- Constitution of Kenya, 2010
- Media Act 2007
Judge Name
J. K. Sergon
Passage Text
- In the end, I hold that the High court has powers to preside over civil matters including the tort of defamation. The Defendant's submissions that Article 34(2), ousts the jurisdiction of this court has no basis. In the premises I find the Preliminary objection to be without merit and I dismiss it with costs to the plaintiffs.
- The defendant submitted that, this court lacks the requisite jurisdiction to preside over this suit because under article 34 (2), the word 'State' is used as a noun which means the collectivity of offices, organs and other entities comprising the Government of the Republic of Kenya under the Constitution. It argued that the Judiciary being an organ of the Government is barred from interfering with any person engaged in broadcasting, production or circulation of any publication or the dissemination of information by any medium. The Defendant further submitted that the Constitution is the Supreme Law of the land and any law that contravenes it is void to the extent of the inconsistency, therefore any provision of the Constitution that is unconstitutional should be repealed. It averred that article 34 (2) was aimed at ending the political pressure and interference of the media by the State that reigned during the yester years. Hence a breach of article 33(2) amounts to a criminal liability and persons aggrieved by the publication have recourse in the Criminal Courts by reporting the incidences listed under the article to the police or other authorities. It submitted further that breach of article33(3) amounts to the tort of defamation which the people of Kenya by voting for the Constitution of Kenya, 2010 intended that any publication in the media could not be challenged in a court of Law.
- They referred this court to article 160 of the Constitution which provides for the independence of the judiciary and categorically states that the Judiciary as constituted under Article 161 shall be subject to the Constitution and shall not be subject to the control or direction of any person or authority. They also cited article 159(1)(2) that provides for the judicial authority. They argued that Article 19 should be taken into consideration while interpreting any provisions of the bill of rights including article 34. They stated that in particular article 19(2) and 19(3)(b) provides that the purpose of recognizing and protecting human rights is to preserve the dignity of individuals and the bill of rights does not exclude other rights and freedoms not in the bill of rights, but recognized or conferred by law. They argued further that the value of the Constitution is to preserve human dignity, equality, equity and freedom. According to article 27(2) of the Constitution, equality includes the full and equal enjoyment of all rights and fundamental freedoms. They asserted that none of the rights and freedoms are superior to others except those stipulated in article 25 and that no freedom can be absolute and free from regulation; including the freedom of the media. They added that the freedom of media should not prejudice the freedom and fundamental rights of others since every person has the right to have their dignity respected and protected.