Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
Court of AppealPartially AllowedCivil Appeal 118 of 1990· [1993] KECA 90 (KLR)

Samson Odonyo v Ojwang' K'Ombudo

Court of Appeal
14 January 1993
1,048 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~4 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

Kenya's Court of Appeal quadrupled slander damages, ruling that a small audience's disbelief of defamatory words does not reduce compensation.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The Court of Appeal at Kisumu (Gachuhi, Masime and Gicheru, JJA) allowed in part the appellant's appeal against the quantum of damages awarded by Omolo, J in a slander suit. The respondent, the appellant's arch political rival, had uttered at the appellant's house late at night, in the presence of the appellant's wife and daughters, words imputing that the appellant planned to murder him. The words were conceded to be defamatory and amounted to slander actionable per se. The trial judge awarded Kshs 10,000, holding that the slander was published only to a limited group who did not believe it. The Court held this was a misdirection: following Bendzel v Karta Singh and Hough v London Express Newspaper Ltd, a statement may be defamatory although the recipient knows it is unfounded, and the imputation of a plot to murder brought the appellant's family relations into question - a factor relevant to enhancing, not minimising, damages. The Court also found the uncontroverted evidence of the appellant's distinguished public status was misapprehended. On exemplary damages, applying Rookes v Barnard via Obongo v Kisumu Municipal Council, the Court held an exemplary award was justified given the absence of any justification for the respondent's conduct. Exercising its first-appeal duty to re-evaluate the evidence, the Court enhanced damages to Kshs 40,000, upheld the costs order in the High Court, and awarded the appellant the costs of the appeal. The respondent's cross-appeal survived only on quantum, the first four grounds having been abandoned.

Key legal issues

#
01

Effect of recipients' disbelief of a slander on damages

Holding

The trial judge misdirected himself; disbelief by the small audience does not minimise damages - the imputation questioning the appellant's family relations justified enhancing them

Reasoning

Following Bendzel v Karta Singh and Hough v London Express, a statement may be defamatory even if the recipient knows it is unfounded. The slander imputed a plot to murder, bringing the appellant's relations with his family as husband and father into question, so the limited publication was relevant to enhancing, not minimising, damages.

p. 2
02

Exemplary damages for slander

Holding

An award of exemplary damages was justified given the parties were arch political rivals and there was no justification for the late-night visit

Reasoning

Rookes v Barnard confines exemplary damages to two classes not to be extended. The trial judge's findings of arch political rivalry and complete absence of justification for the respondent's conduct supported an exemplary element in the award.

p. 2
03

Slander actionable per se

Holding

Slander imputing a criminal offence of murder is actionable per se without proof of actual damage

Reasoning

The words were defamatory in their ordinary meaning and amounted to slander accusing the appellant of planning murder; such slander is actionable per se and no actual damage need be proved.

p. 1

Legal principles established

#
  • On a first appeal the Court of Appeal must re-evaluate the whole evidence and make its own independent findings
  • A statement may be defamatory although the recipient knows it is unfounded
  • Rookes v Barnard sets the law of Kenya on exemplary damages and its two classes should not be extended

Court orders

#
  1. 1.Damages for slander enhanced from Kshs 10,000 to Kshs 40,000
  2. 2.Order of the superior court as to costs in that Court upheld
  3. 3.Costs of the appeal allowed to the appellant against the respondent
On appeal from
High Court
Jurisdiction invoked
First appeal to the Court of Appeal under the Court of Appeal jurisdiction (Appellate Jurisdiction Act/Civil Appeal)

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Samson Odonyo v Ojwang' K'Ombudo", Case Analysis (1993). Civil Appeal 118 of 1990. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/1993/90/eng@1993-01-14

Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.