SheriaNet for Android — search and read Kenyan case law from your phone, offline.
Join the beta →

J.P. Machira t/a Machira & Company Advocates v Mwangi & another (Civil Appeal 175 of 2019) [2023] KECA 228 (KLR) (3 March 2023) (Judgment)

[2023] KECA 228 (KLR) Court of Appeal
Read PDF
Court
Court of Appeal
Case number
228
Citation
[2023] KECA 228 (KLR)
Decided
3 March 2023
AI Summary Beta Machine-generated — may contain errors. Not legal advice.
TypeCivil AppealPostureAppeal against part of the Judgment of the High Court of Kenya at NairobiCoramHANNAH OKWENGU, ALI-ARONI, J. MATIVO
Holding

The Court held that the defamatory news reports were privileged under section 6 of the Defamation Act and dismissed the appellant's claim for damages.

Facts

The appellant, J.P. Machira, sued the respondents (Wangethi Mwangi and Nation Newspapers Limited) for defamation arising from defamatory news reports published in the Daily Nation Newspaper on 26th July, 2000, 27th July, 2000, and 1st August, 2000.

Issues

  1. Whether the defamatory news reports were privileged under section 6 of the Defamation Act.
  2. Whether the appellant's claim for damages should be awarded.

Reasoning

The Court found that the defamatory statements were in all respects germane to the issues before the court and were made in the course of judicial proceedings, thus qualifying for privilege under section 6 of the Defamation Act. The Court also found no evidence of malice in the publications.

Outcome

The appeal was successful, and the High Court's judgment was set aside. The appellant's suit was dismissed, and the respondents were ordered to pay the appellant's costs.

Orders

  • The judgment of the High Court dated September 28, 2018, and all consequential orders arising therefrom were set aside.
  • The appellant's suit was dismissed.
  • The appellant was ordered to pay the respondents' costs of the appeal and the proceedings in the High Court.

Authorities cited

Legislation (1)
  • Defamation Act
Cases cited (1)
  • Lewis v Daily Telegraph Ltd {1964} AC 234 - 285
Experimental AI summary generated by a language model, not a lawyer. It may contain errors or omissions and must not be relied on for legal decisions — the full judgment below is the authoritative source.
Full judgment 0.3 MB · PDF

Loading judgment…

Cite this case


        
        
      

Share this case