Standard Newspapers Limited v Joseph Konzollo Munyao [2018] KECA 131 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Court of Appeal confirmed a Kshs. 5 million defamation award against The Standard because the newspaper offered no evidence to prove its defences.
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 published article defamed the respondent and whether the appellant's defences of truth and fair comment were established
- 2.Whether the trial Judge erred in shifting the burden of proof to the appellant
- 3.Whether the award of Kshs. 5,000,000/= general damages was excessive and exorbitant such that the appellate court should interfere
Key legal issues
#Liability for defamation where the defence of truth and fair comment is not supported by evidence
The trial Judge rightly found liability because the appellant called no evidence to support its pleaded defences, and the words defamed and demeaned the respondent in the eyes of right-thinking members of society
The publication and its reference to the respondent were undisputed. The defence pleaded truth in substance and fact and fair comment on a matter of public interest concerning a Minister's conduct. However, the appellant chose not to call any witnesses at the close of the respondent's case, so its particulars remained unproven allegations. The respondent's uncontradicted testimony, corroborated by two witnesses, established the defamatory meaning and injury. Humour or satire was rejected as a characterisation of the words.
Whether the appellate court should interfere with the award of Kshs. 5,000,000/= general damages
The award was reasonable and not erroneous; interference was not justified under the established principles governing appellate review of damages
The court applied the principle that an appellate court will not disturb a damages award merely because it would have awarded differently; it must be shown the trial Judge acted on a wrong principle or the figure is entirely erroneous. The trial Judge had considered comparable awards in prior defamation cases, including awards of Kshs. 1,500,000, Kshs. 3,500,000, Kshs. 30,000,000 and Kshs. 8,000,000. Measured against those comparables and the circumstances of 2007, the award was neither high nor exorbitant.
Legal principles established
#- A first appellate court must review and re-evaluate the evidence but should respect the trial Judge's findings of fact unless unsupported by the evidence, perverse, or not findings a reasonable tribunal would make
- A party that pleads truth or fair comment but calls no evidence in support leaves its defence a mere allegation; the plaintiff's testimony may then be accepted
- An appellate court will not disturb an award of damages unless it is so inordinately high or low as to represent an entirely erroneous estimate, or the Judge proceeded on wrong principles or misapprehended the evidence
Court orders
#- 1.Appeal dismissed
- 2.Costs of the appeal 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
- HCCC No. 917 of 2003
- Jurisdiction invoked
- First appeal to the Court of Appeal under the appellate jurisdiction of the Court (the judgment does not cite a specific constitutional/statutory provision)
Relief refused
#Setting aside the finding of liability for defamation
The appellant called no evidence to support its defences of truth and fair comment, leaving the defence a mere allegation
Reduction of the award of Kshs. 5,000,000/= general damages
The award was neither high nor exorbitant; it was reasonable in the circumstances of 2007
Costs
Appeal 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.
it is our duty as a first appellate court to review and reevaluate the evidence and reach our own findings and conclusions on the same
The words complained of were not humour or satire at all. They defamed and demeaned the respondent in the eyes of right thinking members of society and the Judge was right to find that liability held against the appellant.
An appellate court will not disturb an award of damages unless it is so inordinately high or low as to represent an entirely erroneous estimate.
There is no merit in this appeal which we dismiss with costs to the respondent.
Issues in the judgment
#The judgment states the trial judgment was delivered on 30th May, 2017 in the body but the appeal header and a later passage both give the date as 30th May, 2007
The appellant's memorandum of appeal is described as containing five grounds, but only four are enumerated in the judgment (liability, proof of case/defamation, burden of proof, quantum)
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Standard Newspapers Limited v Joseph Konzollo Munyao [2018] KECA 131 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2018). Civil Appeal No. 54 of 2008. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/2018/131/eng@2018-10-12
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.