Kenya Union of Domestic Workers, Educational Institutions & Allied Workers v Musyoka (Cause E140 of 2025) [2025] KEELRC 1301 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A union's bid to silence alleged Facebook defamation failed because it presented social media screenshots without the certificate Kenyan law requires for electronic evidence.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Admissibility of electronic/social media extracts under sections 106A and 106B of the Evidence Act
The extracts of the alleged defamatory Facebook publications were subject to section 106B and, in the absence of a certificate and proof of the conditions in subsection (2), were inadmissible
KUDHEIHA argued the extracts were merely extracts of defamatory words outside section 106B. The Court held the legal position to the contrary: extracts of electronic publications can only be admissible and proved if the strictures of section 106B, including the certificate by a person in a responsible position, are satisfied. KUDHEIHA did not comply, so the evidence was not admissible.
Whether a prima facie case was established for an interlocutory injunction
Without admissible evidence of the alleged defamatory publications, no prima facie case was established and the injunction could not issue
The claim of defamation rested on the Facebook extracts, which were inadmissible for want of compliance with section 106B. Having failed to place admissible evidence before the Court, KUDHEIHA could not demonstrate a prima facie case with a probability of success at the interlocutory stage, and the temporary injunction was refused.
Whether there was a proper Claimant
The objection failed because a corporate body may sue for defamation
The Respondent's Grounds of Opposition contended there was no proper Applicant/Claimant. The Court rejected this, holding that the law allows a corporate body to sue for defamation, so KUDHEIHA was properly before the Court as Claimant notwithstanding its corporate nature.
Legal principles established
#- Extracts of alleged defamatory words printed from social media are electronic evidence subject to section 106B of the Evidence Act and are only admissible if the requirements of that section are fulfilled
- A corporate body may sue for defamation
Court orders
#- 1.The Motion dated 26 February 2025 is dismissed with costs
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Employment and Labour Relations Court jurisdiction over the dispute between the Union and the Respondent (Issue in Dispute stated in the Memorandum of Claim); no specific constitutional or statutory provision cited.
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Kenya Union of Domestic Workers, Educational Institutions & Allied Workers v Musyoka (Cause E140 of 2025) [2025] KEELRC 1301 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in the judgment as provided. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/1301/eng@2025-05-08
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.