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

Rutto v Langat & another (Civil Appeal 51 & 52 of 2020 (Consolidated)) [2025] KECA 1276 (KLR) (11 July 2025) (Judgment)

[2025] KECA 1276 (KLR) Court of Appeal
Read PDF
Court
Court of Appeal
Case number
1276
Citation
[2025] KECA 1276 (KLR)
Decided
11 July 2025
AI Summary Beta Machine-generated — may contain errors. Not legal advice.
TypeCivil AppealPostureAppeal from the Judgment of the High Court of Kenya at BometCoramJ. MATIVO, M. GACHOKA, G.V. ODUNGA
Holding

The appeal is allowed to the extent that the judgement on liability against the appellant and the 2nd respondent is set aside and substituted in the ratio of 70:30 respectively.

Facts

Elizabeth C. Langat filed defamation proceedings against Isaac Rutto and Standard Limited in Bomet High Court. Rutto was accused of defaming Langat at a press conference, and Standard Limited was blamed for publishing the defamatory article.

Issues

  1. whether the 1st respondent proved the tort of defamation to the required standards
  2. whether the 1st respondent was entitled to the damages

Reasoning

The court held that the 1st respondent did not prove the tort of defamation and that the damages awardable to the 1st respondent should have been reduced due to the failure to exercise the right of reply.

Outcome

The appeal is allowed to the extent that the judgement on liability against the appellant and the 2nd respondent is set aside and substituted in the ratio of 70:30 respectively.

Orders

  • Judgement against the appellant and the 2nd respondent severally in the ratio of 70:30 respectively

Remedies

  • Award of costs of the appeal to the 1st respondent to be paid by the appellant and the 2nd respondent according to their respective liabilities

Authorities cited

Legislation (2)
  • Civil Procedure Rules
  • Defamation Act
Cases cited (2)
  • Texas Statute
  • Order 2 rule 4[1] of the Civil Procedure Rules
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