Samson Odonyo v Ojwang' K'Ombudo
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
#Questions the Court framed
#The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.
- 1.Whether the trial judge misdirected himself in treating the fact that the small group to whom the slander was published did not believe it as a factor minimising damages
- 2.Whether the trial judge misapprehended the uncontroverted evidence of the appellant's status
- 3.Whether the respondent's conduct justified an award of exemplary damages
- 4.What quantum of damages ought to be awarded for the slander
Key legal issues
#Effect of recipients' disbelief of a slander on damages
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
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.
Exemplary damages for slander
An award of exemplary damages was justified given the parties were arch political rivals and there was no justification for the late-night visit
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.
Slander actionable per se
Slander imputing a criminal offence of murder is actionable per se without proof of actual damage
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.
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.Damages for slander enhanced from Kshs 10,000 to Kshs 40,000
- 2.Order of the superior court as to costs in that Court upheld
- 3.Costs of the appeal allowed to the appellant against the respondent
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
Wrote the judgment
Wrote the judgment
- 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)
Relief refused
#Cross-appeal grounds other than quantum
First four grounds of the cross-appeal were abandoned, leaving only quantum for argument
Costs
Costs in the superior court upheld as ordered there; costs of the appeal awarded to the appellant against the respondent.
Quotable passages
#Verbatim from the judgment, each located to the page it appears on in the official PDF — so these can be cited and checked directly.
Accordingly we enhance the damages to Kshs 40,000/-. We uphold the order of the superior court as to costs in that Court but allow the costs of this appeal as the appellant against the respondent.
a statement may be defamatory although the recipient may know it is unfounded
We are accordingly of the view that an award of exemplary damages was justied.
it is incumbent on this Court to scrutinize and re-evaluate the whole evidence adduced at the trial and make its own independent ndings thereon
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.