The High Court Civil Division ruled that sharing the allegations among colleagues damaged the plaintiff’s reputation and that attempts to distance oneself by stating that the information was only an allegation or that investigations were ongoing could not shield a person from liability.

The court found that defamatory content does not cease to be defamatory merely because it is presented as a report of accusations.

In the judgment, the court held that statements such as “it is alleged” and references to ongoing investigations are not a complete defence where the publication exposes a person to reputational harm.

The dispute arose after messages were posted in a WhatsApp group comprising senior URA officials, where allegations were made linking the plaintiff to a shooting incident allegedly arising from a dispute involving a “skirt”.

The plaintiff sued, arguing that the statements portrayed him as a person involved in criminal conduct and lowered his standing among colleagues and members of the public.

The court agreed that the publication was defamatory, holding that repeating allegations made by another person can still amount to defamation.

The judge noted that a person who republishes damaging claims cannot escape responsibility simply by saying they were repeating what they had heard.

The ruling emphasised the need for caution when sharing unverified accusations, especially within professional forums where information can affect an individual’s reputation, career and relationships.

The court further held that workplace or internal communication platforms, including WhatsApp groups, do not provide automatic protection from defamation claims.

The decision serves as a warning that digital platforms can carry legal consequences when used to circulate statements that harm another person’s reputation.

The High Court awarded the plaintiff UGX 100 million as compensation for the damage caused by the defamatory publication.

The post Man Wins Sh100m After “Shooting Over Skirt” Claims Shared Online appeared first on Insider Bits News.

In Civil Casefiled at the High Court in Milimani, Lenaola, through his lawyers Ngeri, Omiti & Bush Advocates LLP, is seeking urgent injunction orders to restrain Muigai from “publishing, circulating or causing to be published any further defamatory statements” against him.

In court papers seen by this reporter, the judge said Muigai had, in a series of widely circulated video interviews on September 8, September 12, and September 25, 2025, made scandalous allegations that were “false, reckless, malicious and calculated to injure” his personal and professional reputation.

“The Respondent maliciously alleged without any justification that I, together with other Justices of the Supreme Court and Court of Appeal, was involved in corruption dealings in suits concerning his properties,” Lenaola stated in his sworn affidavit.

The judge further accused Muigai of going as far as linking him and his colleagues to the death of lawyer Kyalo Mbobu, who previously represented Muigai.

“On or about 12th September 2025, the Respondent made further allegations insinuating recklessly that I and other Justices were involved in the death of his Advocate, the late Mr. Kyalo Mbobu, allegedly as a result of his so-called ‘corruption exposé’,” Lenaola’s affidavit reads.

The disputed interviews were first aired on Digee (DG) Media’s YouTube and TikTok platforms, before being reposted on other digital outlets such as Mutembei TV, NewsLife TV, Superior Media KE, Balindiway Media, and Digital Nation.

As of the filing date, one of the TikTok videos had attracted 6,309 likes, 582 comments, 796 saves, and 1,724 reposts, according to the pleadings.

Lenaola argues that the wide circulation has fueled public misconceptions, lowering his standing among “right-thinking members of society” and undermining the integrity of the Judiciary, which “depends heavily on public trust.”

On September 16, 2025, Lenaola’s lawyers issued a formal demand notice to Muigai, instructing him to retract the claims.

However, Muigai allegedly refused, and instead “dared the Applicant to sue him.”

In one of his later videos on September 25, Muigai is said to have admitted granting similar interviews to mainstream media, including Nation Media Group, “with the malicious intent of further spreading his defamatory and unsubstantiated statements.”

Lenaola now seeks urgent court orders to compel Muigai to delete all defamatory videos, retract his remarks, and cease further publication pending full hearing of the case.

His lawyers argue:“It is in the public interest that the Respondent be restrained forthwith, as the Applicant, being a senior member of the Judiciary, requires protection from continued peddling of falsehoods. The actions of the Respondent are ill-intended and orchestrated to besmirch the reputation of the Applicant, unless this Honourable Court intervenes.”

The judge is seeking various orders inccluding,a temporary and permanent injunction barring Muigai from publishing any further defamatory statements.
” The court should issue an order compelling Muigai to retract and delete all defamatory posts and videos,” Lenaola seeks.

Justice Lenaola, who has also served in various regional and international judicial roles, emphasized his constitutional right to a good name under Articles 31 and 33(3) of the Constitution of Kenya (2010).

“Like every other Kenyan, I am entitled to my good name and the esteem in which I am held by others. By virtue of my distinguished position both locally and internationally, my reputation should not be disparaged by defamatory statements made without lawful justification,” he stated.

The post Supreme Court Judge Isaac Lenaola Sues President Uhuru’s Cousin Kung’u Muigai for Defamation appeared first on Insider Bits News.