Nation Newspapers Limited v Lydia Chesire [1984] KECA 33 (KLR)

The court considered whether to depart from Cassidy, which its predecessor approved in East African Standard v Gitau, but declined for two reasons: the law of libel has 'passed beyond redemption by the courts', and Parliament had instead provided the publisher with statutory defences in sections 12 and 13 of the Defamation Act. The proper course for a publisher is to plead and prove those defences, which the Nation had not done.

Following Hough and applying Clerk & Lindsell and Gatley, the plaintiff must prove that special or extrinsic facts were known to recipients of the publication. The evidence need not show that those recipients actually understood the words defamatorily, only that a reasonable person with that knowledge might. Mr Kuruna's knowledge of the marriage was the requisite special circumstance.

Counsel for the Nation argued the English decisions were inapplicable in a country permitting several forms of marriage and that under the proviso to section 3(1) of the Judicature Act received law applies only so far as local circumstances permit, citing Dodhia v National and Grindlays Bank. The court accepted the trial judge's view that this was irrelevant to liability but relevant to quantum, which informed the reduction of damages.

The respondent and her husband had been separated since 1970, she used her maiden name outside school, she had petitioned for divorce, and the only supporting witness's regard for her was unaffected. The trial judge over-weighted the appellant's refusal to apologise, which did not worsen a minor defamation. Following Butt v Khan, Channan Singh and H West & Son, the award was substantially reduced.