Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
High CourtPartially AllowedNot stated in the judgment (plaint dated 22nd March, 2017)· [2020] KEHC 195 (KLR)

Stella Langat v Stephen Ruto & The Standard Limited (Defamation)

High Court of Kenya
1 July 2020
AOA N ONGERI
3,986 words in judgment
View original judgment Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~16 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

If false statements about you damage your reputation, you can sue for damages, even if the speaker claims it was in the public interest.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The plaintiff, a former County Executive Committee Member for Public Health and Environment in Bomet County, sued the 1st Defendant (the former Governor) for defamatory statements made at a press conference on 30th March 2016, in which he termed her incompetent and non-performing, and the 2nd Defendant (The Standard Limited) for publishing an article reporting that the Governor had accused her of poor performance, failure to attend duties, misconduct in handling staff matters and misuse of a county government vehicle. She sought an apology and retraction, general damages for libel and malicious falsehood, exemplary damages, damages for psychological and emotional distress, costs and interest. Both defendants denied the claim, raising truth, public interest and qualified privilege. The court framed two issues: whether the tort of defamation was proved to the required standard, and whether the plaintiff was entitled to the damages sought. Applying the objective test of defamation, the court found the publication amounted to libel actionable per se. The public-interest defence failed because the defendants relied on a letter containing factual statements rather than opinion, and the qualified-privilege defence failed because no Reynolds guidelines were satisfied and no steps were taken to verify the allegations or seek the plaintiff's comment. The court awarded general damages for libel of Kshs.5,000,000 jointly and severally against both defendants, with costs and interest at court rates. The apology, exemplary damages, malicious falsehood and psychological distress heads were refused; the court noted the plaintiff had already been awarded Kshs.4.5 million for wrongful dismissal by the Employment and Labour Relations Court.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the tort of defamation was proved against both defendants

Holding

The plaintiff proved libel on a balance of probabilities; the defences of qualified privilege and public interest failed.

Reasoning

The court applied the objective test of defamation and found the publication lowered the plaintiff in the estimation of right-minded persons. The defendants relied on a letter containing factual statements, not opinion, so the public-interest defence failed. No Reynolds guidelines were met to establish qualified privilege, and no steps were taken to verify the allegations or seek the plaintiff's comment before publication.

p. 5
02

Whether the plaintiff was entitled to the damages sought

Holding

General damages for libel of Ksh.5,000,000 awarded; exemplary damages, malicious falsehood and psychological distress damages refused.

Reasoning

Compensation must be reasonable and fair, considering the plaintiff's standing, mode and extent of publication, and the defendants' conduct. The plaintiff's inability to secure employment after the publication supported the award, but her Ksh.4.5 million compensation for wrongful dismissal was noted, and no aggravating circumstances justified exemplary damages.

p. 6

Legal principles established

#
  • The test as to whether a statement is defamatory is objective, judged by what a reasonable person reading it would perceive.
  • The onus of proving the truth of defamatory words in their ordinary and natural meaning lies on a defendant relying on qualified privilege.
  • A defence of public interest requires the statement to be one of opinion, not of fact, made on a matter of public interest.

Court orders

#
  1. 1.Judgment entered in favor of the plaintiff against the defendants jointly and severally in the sum of ksh.5,000,000 plus costs and interest at court rates from the date of the judgment until payment in full.

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • The County Government ActSection 31(a)
  • Civil Procedure Rules 2010Order 2 Rule 7(1)

Cases cited (26)

  • Murphy V. LaMarsh

    Definition of defamation as words tending to bring a person into hatred, contempt or ridicule.

  • Joseph Njogu Kamunge V. Charles Muruiki Gachari
    (2016) eKLR

    Elements of defamation - words tending to lower reputation or cause the plaintiff to be shunned or avoided.

  • J M K V. M W M & Another
    (2015) eKLR

    Value and importance of reputation.

  • Rosenblatt V. Baer
    (1966) 382 (US) 75 at 92

    Value and importance of reputation.

  • Hon. Uhuru Muigai Kenyatta V. Baraza Limited

    Defendant must establish the true facts; plaintiff has no burden to prove the defence raised.

  • Samuel Ndung’u Mukunya V. Nation Media Group Limited & Another
    (2015) eKLR

    Factors relevant to assessment of defamation damages.

  • C A M V. Royal Media Services Limited
    Civil Appeal No. 283 of 2005 (2013) eKLR

    Court's wide discretion in defamation damages - gravity, circulation, effect on plaintiff, mitigation, vindication.

  • Standard Media V. Kagia & Co. Advocates

    Mentioned on quantum of defamation damages.

  • Johnson Evan Gicheru V. Andrew Morton & Another
    (2005) eKLR

    Mentioned on quantum of defamation damages.

  • Benedict Maurice Omollo Olwenyo V. Migori County Government & 3 Others
    (2017) eKLR

    Damages benchmark in support of Kshs.20,000,000 claim.

  • Musikari Kombo V. Royal Media Services Limited
    (2018) eKLR

    Damages benchmark in support of Kshs.20,000,000 claim.

  • Kalya and Another V. Standard Limited
    (2002) eKLR

    Damages benchmark in support of Kshs.20,000,000 claim.

  • Wycliff A. Swanya V. Toyota East Africa Limited
    Nairobi CA No. 70 of 2008

    Elements of defamation including publication, malice and proof of special damages.

  • Francis Massai

    Cited alongside Wycliff A. Swanya on elements of defamation.

  • Henwood V. Harrison
    (1872) LR 7CP 606

    Basis of qualified privilege in public policy and common convenience.

  • Gerhold V. Baker
    (1918) WN 368

    Qualified privilege defence.

  • George Mukuru Muchai V. The Standard Limited
    HCCC No. 2539 of 1997

    Claimant must prove reputation and character suffered at the instance of the alleged libel or slander.

  • The Standard Limited V. Joseph Leo Ochieng and others
    Civil Appeal No. 189 of 2004

    Claimant must prove reputation and character suffered at the instance of the alleged libel or slander.

  • Nation Newspaper Limited V. Gibendi
    (2002) 2 KLR

    Claimant must prove reputation and character suffered at the instance of the alleged libel or slander.

  • Kagwiria M. Kioga and Another V. Standard Limited and 3 others
    (2015) eKLR

    Qualified privilege of the media.

  • Ndungu Njoroge & Kwach Advocates and another V. Standard Limited & 8 Others
    (2018) eKLR

    Qualified privilege of the media.

  • Standard Limited V. Alnashir Visram
    Civil Appeal No. 89 of 2017 (unreported)

    Circumstances in which exemplary damages may be awarded in defamation.

  • John Edward V. Standard Limited

    Definition and ingredients of defamation.

  • Naqvi Syed Qmar v Paramount Bank Limited & another
    [2015] eKLR

    Defamation in employment law - stigmatizing statements damaging employability must be compensated.

  • Reynolds v Times Newspapers
    (2001) 2 AC 127 (HL)

    Guidelines for the defence of qualified privilege.

  • Uren V John Fairax & Sons Pty Ltd
    (1966) HCA 40

    Damages for defamation operate as vindication and consolation, a solatium rather than monetary recompense.

Jurisdiction invoked
Original civil jurisdiction of the High Court in a defamation claim (plaint dated 22nd March, 2017)

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Stella Langat v Stephen Ruto & The Standard Limited (Defamation)", Case Analysis (2020). Not stated in the judgment (plaint dated 22nd March, 2017). Source:

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