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 AppealDismissedCivil Appeal No. 102 of 2017· [2020] KECA 749 (KLR)

J.p. Machira T/A Machira & Company Advocates v Wachira Waruru & 1 other

Court of Appeal of Kenya
24 April 2020
5,228 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~21 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

Kenya's Court of Appeal confirmed that fair, accurate newspaper reports of court cases held in chambers are protected from defamation claims.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
This first appeal challenged the High Court's dismissal of a defamation suit by an advocate against the editor and publisher of the East African Standard over three articles published in July and August 2000 reporting court proceedings in HCCC No. 113 of 1999, in which the appellant had obtained judgment against a client of unsound mind over a Karen property. The appellant's central contention was that because the proceedings were conducted in chambers, reports of them did not enjoy privilege under Section 6 of the Defamation Act, relying on the High Court decision in George Oraro and the English case of Rex v Astor. The Court of Appeal rejected that contention, holding that judicial proceedings in Kenya are not necessarily private simply because conducted in chambers, and that the expression 'open court proceedings' in the Oraro passage should not be read literally to exclude chambers. It further held that the common law rule denying privilege to reports of pleadings not yet canvassed in open court cannot override the express statutory privilege. On the burden of proving fairness and accuracy, the court held that although the respondents called no evidence, the articles and transcripts were produced by the appellant himself, and on comparison the articles were substantially accurate, non-verbatim accounts of what was submitted in court; a follow-up article also reported the appellant's side. The court affirmed the dismissal of the suit, upheld the award of costs to the respondents as consistent with the principle that costs follow the event, and dismissed the appeal with costs. The judgment binds lower courts to the rule that chamber proceedings attract Section 6 privilege for fair and accurate newspaper reports.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether Section 6 privilege extends to reports of proceedings conducted in chambers

Holding

Yes. Chamber proceedings are judicial proceedings and a fair and accurate report of them is absolutely privileged; 'open court proceedings' should not be read literally to exclude chambers

Reasoning

The court declined to follow the appellant's reading of the George Oraro decision, holding that judicial proceedings in Kenya are not private merely because held in chambers. It noted that shortage of courtrooms often compels judges to conduct proceedings in chambers, and that the common law rule on pleadings cannot override the express statutory language of Section 6.

p. 5
02

Whether the three articles were fair and accurate reports

Holding

Yes. Comparison of the articles with the transcripts of proceedings showed they were faithful, substantially accurate accounts of what was submitted in court

Reasoning

Although the respondents called no witnesses, the articles and transcripts were produced by the appellant himself, satisfying the burden. The court compared each article with the record and found the substance faithful; the reports were not verbatim but gave a correct and just impression, and a follow-up report carrying the appellant's side was published.

p. 6
03

Whether costs were properly awarded to the respondents despite their not calling evidence

Holding

Yes. Costs follow the event and the discretion was not shown to have been wrongly exercised

Reasoning

The court noted the respondents defended the suit even without calling witnesses, and found nothing to demonstrate that the trial judge misdirected himself in awarding them costs; the order was consistent with the general principle that costs follow the event.

p. 6
04

The duty of a first appellate court on facts

Holding

A first appeal is by way of retrial; the court is not bound by the trial court's findings but must have regard to its inability to see or hear the witnesses

Reasoning

Relying on Selle v Associated Motor Boat Co Ltd, the court restated the settled principle that it must reconsider and evaluate the evidence and draw its own conclusions, while making due allowance for the fact that it did not see or hear the witnesses.

p. 4

Legal principles established

#
  • Judicial proceedings conducted in chambers are not necessarily private; a fair and accurate newspaper report of such proceedings is absolutely privileged under Section 6 of the Defamation Act
  • A privileged report need not be verbatim; an abridged or condensed report is privileged if it gives a correct and just impression of what took place in court
  • The onus of proving that a report is fair and accurate lies on the defendant, but it is sufficient if this clearly appears from the claimant's own evidence
  • The common law rule denying privilege to reports of pleadings not yet canvassed in open court cannot override the express statutory privilege in the Defamation Act

Court orders

#
  1. 1.Appeal dismissed with costs to the respondents
On appeal from
High Court of Kenya at Nairobi
H.C.C.C. No. 2002 of 2000
Jurisdiction invoked
First appellate jurisdiction under the Court of Appeal's statutory appellate powers over High Court civil decisions

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Later judgments citing this (1)

#

Judgments in the corpus that rely on this one. Where the Court said how it treated the authority, that is shown.

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "J.p. Machira T/A Machira & Company Advocates v Wachira Waruru & 1 other", Case Analysis (2020). Civil Appeal No. 102 of 2017. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/2020/749/eng@2020-04-24

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