The High Court has dismissed an application by Nairobi Governor Johnson Sakaja seeking to bar Nation Media Group (NMG) and two of its journalists from publishing stories linking him to alleged violence during the June 17 Gen-Z protests.
Justice Prof. (Dr.) Nixon Sifuna, sitting in Nairobi, ruled on Tuesday that the request for a blanket injunction against the Daily Nation amounted to an attempt to impose a “rolling gag order” on the press and failed to meet the strict legal threshold required in defamation cases.
“This Court is not satisfied that the Plaintiff has established a sound enough and legally sufficient enough basis for a grant of the injunctive orders sought in this Motion. The Motion is therefore for dismissal,” Justice Sifuna held in a ruling delivered on September 30, 2025.
Governor Sakaja had filed a libel suit against NMG, journalist Evans Habii, and reporter Nyaboge Kiage over a June 19, 2025 Daily Nation front-page story titled “How Chaos Was Planned.
” The article, which carried his photograph and attributed statements, linked him to goons accused of attacking protesters in Nairobi.
In his motion filed the same day, Sakaja sought interim orders restraining NMG from publishing or disseminating any further stories suggesting he organized, planned, or funded the violence.
He argued that without such orders, the defendants might publish similar allegations during anniversaries of the protests.
The defendants opposed the motion, insisting that granting such injunctions would violate press freedom guaranteed under Article 34 of the Constitution.
Justice Sifuna stressed that courts must balance two constitutional imperatives in defamation cases, press freedom and an individual’s right to reputation, but that restrictions on the mainstream media should only be issued “sparingly and in exceptional circumstances.”
“Pre-trial injunctions against the mainstream media platforms ought to be issued very sparingly and only in exceptional and most deserving circumstances,” the judge noted.
He further cautioned against issuing speculative or anticipatory gag orders.
“In the pre-trial period, a rolling gag order such as the one the Plaintiff is seeking in this Motion, is most undesirable. At its worst, such an injunction can in its terms be rather speculative, hypothetical and remote,” He said
The court held that Sakaja had failed to demonstrate evidence of any imminent or immediate threat of another defamatory publication, adding that any fresh defamatory claim could still be remedied through damages.
“The higher the privilege, the higher the responsibility and scrutiny… Courts should refrain from the mere gagging of the media and silencing of journalists. Press freedom and journalistic expression is a necessary evil,” Justice Sifuna said
The motion was dismissed with no order as to costs.
