George Benedict Maina Kariuki v Nairobi Star Publication Ltd & another [2016] eKLR

Key Facts

Issues

• The court considered whether the article published by the Defendants on October 16, 2009, was libelous and malicious against the Plaintiff, Hon. George Benedict Maina Kariuki.
• The court determined if the article's statements directly referred to the Plaintiff, Hon. George Benedict Maina Kariuki.
• The court addressed the amount of damages the Plaintiff could claim if the article was found defamatory.
• The court examined whether the Plaintiff made a demand for an apology from the Defendants following the publication.
• The court determined which party, the Plaintiff or the Defendants, would be liable for the costs of the legal proceedings.
• The court considered whether the Plaintiff's reputation was harmed by the article's publication.
• The court evaluated if the article was protected under the defense of absolute privilege as a fair report of judicial proceedings.
• The court assessed if the article contained defamatory content that lowered the Plaintiff's reputation in the eyes of right-thinking members of society.

Holdings

• The court assessed that a figure of Ksh.5,000,000 would have sufficed as general damages if the Plaintiff had succeeded, but no aggravated damages were awarded due to lack of malice or re-publication.
• The court considered the defenses of justification and fair comment, noting the article reported true facts of the Plaintiff's acquittal and was a fair comment on a matter of public interest involving a judge.
• The court found that the article published by the Defendants was not defamatory and that the defenses of fair comment, justification, and absolute privilege were absolute defenses in this case.
• The court dismissed the Plaintiff's claim as he failed to prove that the article lowered his reputation in the estimation of right-thinking members of society.
• The court emphasized the Plaintiff's failure to exercise his right of reply and the absence of evidence showing the article impacted his career or reputation.

Remedies

• The court dismissed the plaintiff's defamation claim, finding that the article was not defamatory and the defendants' defenses (justification, fair comment, absolute privilege) were valid. The plaintiff failed to prove his case on a balance of probabilities.
• The court ruled there are no orders as to costs, meaning the defendants are not required to pay the plaintiff's legal expenses.

Legal Principles

• The court applied the defenses of justification (truth), fair comment on matters of public interest, and absolute privilege under the Defamation Act. The article was deemed a fair and accurate report of judicial proceedings involving a public official (Judge), which is protected under absolute privilege. The Reynolds Guidelines were referenced to assess public interest, emphasizing the importance of truthful reporting on matters of public concern.
• The burden of proving the defamatory statement's falsity was on the Defendant, but the court found the Plaintiff failed to establish malice or that the article lowered his reputation in the eyes of 'right thinking members of society.' The Plaintiff's claim was dismissed as he did not meet the balance of probabilities standard.

Precedent Name

• Thomas Vs C.B.C
• John Vs MGN Ltd
• Slim Vs Daily Telegraph
• Kagwiria Mutwiri Kioga & Another Vs Standard Limited
• John Edward Vs Standard Limited
• Johnson Evans Gicheru Vs Andrew Mortion & Another
• Reynolds Vs Times Newspapers

Cited Statute

Judge Name

Passage Text

• Having considered the evidence on record, it's the finding by this court that the article published by the 1st Defendant in the Star Newspapers on 16th October, 2009 was not defamatory. The defences raised by the Defendants of fair comment, justification and absolute privilege are absolute defences in this case.
• The elements of the tort of defamation were well laid out in the case of John Edward Vs Standard Limited as follows: 1. The statement must be defamatory. 2. The statement must refer to the Plaintiff. 3. The statement must have been published by the Defendant. 4. The statement must be false.
• The Defendants have pleaded the defences of justification, fair comment and absolute privilege... the article was a fair and accurate reporting of the proceedings heard before a court exercising judicial authority published without any malice, pursuant to Section 2 of the first schedule of the Defamation Act.