A couple has lost Ksh8.5 million awarded by the Milimani Commercial Chief Magistrates Court against Standard Media Group for defamation over a story that the outlet published on the Nairobian after the High Court reversed the earlier ruling.
The couple had argued in their pleadings that the coverage was defamatory but Standard noted in their application that the story covered what the husband had listed as the cause of their split.
Documents tabled in court indicated that the husband had cited infidelity as the cause of the split, sharing explicit photos with different people via WhatsApp and email which were later used by the Nairobian in their story.
"In conclusion, whether innately false or not, it seems to the court that the statements published in the Appellants’ article as derived from court pleadings in the divorce case between the 1st and 2nd Respondents, could well pass as statements made on an occasion of absolute privilege," the judge ruled.
"That said, in the absence of proof by the 1st Respondent of a key ingredient of defamation, namely, that the statements were defamatory of the 1st Respondent, her entire case crumbles."
According to the couple, the newspaper in 2019, published intimate details which they argued damaged their reputation.
The Magistrate's Court awarded the lady Ksh8.5 million for general and exemplary damages which the media house appealed.
At the High Court, Justice Meoli concluded that the statements published by the newspaper were derived from court pleadings in the couple's divorce case.
The High Court established that the lady did not tender enough evidence to prove that the story caused injury to her reputation by way of public ridicule, hatred or even being shunned, or that it tended to lower her esteem in the mind of right-thinking members of society.
"In the circumstances, it is the court’s considered view, that the trial court erred in finding that the 1st Respondent had discharged her burden of proof and liability established against the Appellants," the judge ruled.
The judge further argued that the story could not affect how people viewed the respondents.
Defamation cases against media outlets cost millions of money annually, denting the companies' books.
