Standard Limited & 2 others v Murungaru (Civil Appeal 187 of 2014) [2016] KECA 70 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Court of Appeal confirmed that courts can hear defamation cases against the media; press freedom does not shield journalists from being sued.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Questions the Court framed
#The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.
- 1.Whether Article 34(2) of the Constitution bars the courts from entertaining, determining and awarding remedies in defamation claims
- 2.Whether hearing, determining and awarding a remedy in a defamation claim by the courts of Kenya constitutes State control, interference or penalization of the media prohibited by Article 34(2) of the Constitution
- 3.Whether the Complaints Commission established under the Media Council Act, 2013 has exclusive jurisdiction over defamation claims against the media, ousting the High Court's jurisdiction
Key legal issues
#Whether the courts' hearing of defamation claims amounts to State control, interference or penalisation of the media prohibited by Article 34(2)
It does not. Article 34(2) restrains the State from controlling, interfering with or penalising the media, but the adjudication of a defamation claim by an independent court enforcing the rights of a private litigant is not such State action.
The Court adopted a holistic interpretation of Article 34, reading it alongside Articles 28 (dignity), 31 (privacy) and 33(3) (respect for the rights and reputations of others). Reading Article 34 in isolation to grant the media immunity from defamation suits would strip bare the right to dignity and render other constitutional provisions otiose. Freedom of the media is not among the non-derogable rights under Article 25 and can be limited under Article 24.
Whether Article 34(5) and the Media Council Act, 2013 vest exclusive jurisdiction over defamation claims in the Complaints Commission
No. Article 34(5) merely requires Parliament to establish a body to set and monitor media standards; it contains nothing approximating an ouster clause, and the Commission lacks power to award constitutional remedies for defamation.
Applying the Supreme Court's pronouncements on ouster clauses in the Judges & Magistrates Vetting Board case, the Court held that ouster of the High Court's express jurisdiction must be in clear, firm and unequivocal language. Article 34(5) does not do so, and the Commission, as a self-regulatory body largely drawn from media practitioners, cannot award the remedies the Constitution contemplates, including compensation for violation of reputation and dignity.
Whether freedom of the media under Article 34 is unlimited save for the exceptions in Article 33(2)
No. Freedom of the media is circumscribed by Article 33(3), which requires every person, including the media, to respect the rights and reputations of others, and is subject to limitation under Article 24.
The Court held that freedom of expression and of the media are not among the rights that cannot be limited under Article 25. Interpreting Article 34 as conferring a special, superior status on the media was rejected as outlandish, with comparative examples from the Swiss, American and other constitutions showing express press freedom guarantees coexisting with responsibility for abuse of the freedom.
Legal principles established
#- Article 34(2) of the Constitution does not bar the High Court from entertaining, determining and awarding remedies in defamation claims against the media; hearing a defamation suit does not constitute State control, interference with, or penalisation of the media.
- Constitutional rights must be interpreted holistically; each provision may not be confined in isolation from other provisions of the Constitution.
- Express jurisdiction conferred on the High Court under Articles 22, 23 and 165(3)(b) cannot be ousted or limited by implication; Article 34(5) is not an ouster clause.
- Reputation is an integral part of the dignity guaranteed by Article 28 of the Constitution, and a person whose reputation is defamed is entitled to a remedy from the courts.
Court orders
#- 1.The appeal is dismissed
- 2.Costs of the appeal are awarded to the respondent
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
- On appeal from
- High Court of Kenya at Nairobi
- Defamation suit arising from publications of 5th June 2011 and 11th July 2011
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Appellate jurisdiction of the Court of Appeal over the High Court's ruling dismissing a preliminary objection (Article 164 of the Constitution); the ruling below engaged the High Court's jurisdiction under Articles 22, 23 and 165(3)(b) of the Constitution
Relief refused
#Declaration that the High Court lacks jurisdiction to entertain defamation claims against the media by virtue of Article 34(2) of the Constitution
The Court found the argument to have no substance; Article 34(5) is not an ouster clause and cannot oust the express jurisdiction conferred on the High Court by Articles 22, 23 and 165(3)(b)
Hearing and determination of defamation claims by the Media Complaints Commission to the exclusion of the courts
The Commission is a self-regulatory body with no power to award the constitutional remedies contemplated for violated rights, including the right to reputation and dignity
Costs
The appeal is dismissed with costs to 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.
The role of a court in a defamation suit does not constitute control, interference with, or penalization of the media by the State
A tool of interpretation of the Constitution that confines each provision of the Constitution or guaranteed right and fundamental freedom into airtight silos, without due regard to how they relate to each other and to the whole, is to be completely eschewed.
In our view, such express jurisdiction cannot be ousted or limited by implication, as the appellants assume.
It cannot therefore be seriously argued that such a body is a substitute for the High Court in matters of enforcement of rights and fundamental freedoms, as argued by the appellants.
Having carefully considered this appeal, we are satisfied that the preliminary objection taken by the appellants, before the High Court well and truly deserved to be dismissed. In the event, this appeal has no merit and is hereby dismissed with costs to the respondent.
Issues in the judgment
#The judgment recites that the respondent's suit arose from publications of 5th June 2011 and 11th July 2011 and that the defence was delivered on 12th April 2012, but the record as supplied does not state the case number of the High Court suit or of the present appeal, so caseNumber is recorded generically.
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Later judgments citing this (2)
#Judgments in the corpus that rely on this one. Where the Court said how it treated the authority, that is shown.
- Kahiu v Creative Economy Working Group & 6 others (Civil Appeal E378 of 2020) [2026] KECA 132 (KLR)[2026] KECA 132 (KLR)23 Jan 2026applied
- Okech v Migori County Public Service Board (Appeal E054 of 2024) [2025] KEELRC 860 (KLR)[2025] KEELRC 860 (KLR)18 Mar 2025
Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Standard Limited & 2 others v Murungaru (Civil Appeal 187 of 2014) [2016] KECA 70 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2016). Civil Appeal (Nairobi). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/2016/70/eng@2016-11-25
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.