Automated Summary
Key Facts
This case involves three Chinese pharmaceutical companies (Beijing Holley-Cotec Pharmaceuticals Co. Ltd, Zhejiang Holley Nanhu Pharmaceuticals Co. Ltd, and Holley-Cotec Co. (EA) Ltd) suing Nation Media Group Limited for defamation over articles published in December 2017 and January 2018 regarding their anti-malarial drug 'Duo-Cotecxin'. The court ruled that the December 2017 claim was statute-barred under Kenya's Limitation of Actions Act and Defamation Act, as the suit was filed on January 8, 2019, exceeding the 12-month limit for libel actions. The January 2018 claim was within the time limit. The court rejected the plaintiffs' argument for the 'multiple publication rule', adopting the English 'single publication rule' from the 2013 Defamation Act, stating each publication is a distinct cause of action with its own limitation period. The December 2017 allegations were struck out, and the plaintiffs were directed to amend their plaint within 14 days.
Issues
- The court considered whether the Plaintiffs' defamation suit, filed on 08.01.2019, was time-barred under Section 4(2) of the Limitations of Actions Act (12-month limit for libel/slander) in relation to the Defendant's publications on 14.12.2017 and 09.01.2018. It also addressed whether the 'multiple-publication rule' could extend the limitation period by treating each website access as a new publication.
- The court evaluated the legal validity of the 'multiple-publication rule' in Kenya, where the Plaintiffs argued that each access to the Defendant's online defamatory content constituted a new cause of action. The court rejected this, adopting the reasoning from Royal Media Services Ltd v Valentine Mugure Maina [2019] eKLR that Kenya does not recognize the rule and that limitation periods run from the initial publication date.
- The court assessed if the Plaintiffs' claim regarding the 14.12.2017 publication (headlined 'Malaria drug in Kenyan market set to be recalled') adequately disclosed a reasonable cause of action. It concluded the plaint was defective for this publication, as no actionable defamation was shown to have occurred within the 12-month limitation period.
Holdings
- The cause of action in respect of the publication made on 09.01.2018 was filed within the 12-month statutory period, as the suit was instituted on 08.01.2019, just one day before the limitation period expired. This claim remains valid and actionable.
- The court found that the cause of action in respect of the publication made on 14.12.2017 is statute-barred under Section 4(2) of the Limitation of Actions Act and Section 20 of the Defamation Act, as the suit was filed on 08.01.2019, which is outside the 12-month limitation period for defamation claims. The court lacks jurisdiction to entertain this claim.
- The preliminary objection (P.O.) has partially succeeded. The court struck out the averments in the plaint relating to the 14.12.2017 publication for being statute-barred. The Plaintiffs are directed to amend their plaint within 14 days, and the Defendant is granted leave to amend their defence. Costs of the P.O. are awarded to the Defendant.
Remedies
- The court struck out the averments in the plaint that relate to the cause of action in respect of the publication by the Defendant made on 14.12.2017.
- The Plaintiffs are directed to amend their plaint accordingly, within 14 days of today's date.
- The costs of the P.O are awarded to the Defendant.
- The Defendant has corresponding leave to amend their defence.
Legal Principles
The court applied the statutory limitation period for defamation actions under Section 4(2) of the Limitation of Actions Act and Section 20 of the Defamation Act, rejecting the 'multiple publication rule' as inapplicable in Kenya. It emphasized that each defamatory publication constitutes a separate cause of action with its own limitation period, and claims based on publications older than 12 months are statute-barred.
Precedent Name
- Owners of the Motor Vessel 'Lillian S' v Caltex Oil (Kenya) Ltd [1989] KLR 1
- Mukisa Biscuits Manufacturing Company Ltd v. West End Distributors (1969) EA 696
- Thuranira Karauri v Agnes Ncheche [1997] eKLR
- Kenya Civil Aviation Authority v WK & 2 Others [2019] eKLR
- DT Dobie & Co. (K) Ltd Muchina [1982] KLR
- IGA v Makerere University (1972) EA 65
- Bosire Ongero Royal Media Services [2015] eKLR
- Kigwor Company Limited v Samedy Trading Company Limited [2021] eKLR
- Mulemi v Angwenye & Another (Civil Appeal 170 of 2016) [2021] KECA 214
- Wycliffe A Swanya v Toyota East Africa Ltd & another [2009] eKLR
- Godfrey versus Demon Internet (1997) ALL ER 342
- Royal Media Services Ltd V Valentine Mugure Maina & Another [2019] eKLR
- Duke of Brunswick and Lunebreg versus Harman (1849) 14 QB 154
- Oraro v Mbaja [2005] KLR 141
Cited Statute
- Defamation Act
- Limitation of Actions Act
Judge Name
C.W. Meoli
Passage Text
- The court states: 'The court strikes out the averments in the plaint that relate to the cause of action in respect of the publication by the Defendant made on 14.12.2017. For the avoidance of doubt the said claim is pleaded in paragraphs 10, 11 and 12 of the plaint.'
- The court finds: 'The cause of action in respect of the publication done on 14.12.2017 is statute barred. However, the cause of action in respect of the latter publication was lodged well within the statutory period.'
- The court states: 'The English legislature has also followed suit and has, in its Defamation Act 2013, deviated from the decisions of the English courts which have hitherto embraced the multiple publication rule and instead introduced the single publication rule; this rule is expressly provided for in section 8 of that Act.'