By Andrew Kariuki
The Chief Magistrate’s Court in Nairobi is set to determine whether popular content creator Oga Obinna was lawfully served with court papers in a Ksh20 million defamation suit filed by entertainer DJ Kalonje and his company, The Mixxmasters Entertainment Limited.
At the centre of the dispute is Obinna’s application seeking leave to file his defence out of time, after asserting that he was never properly notified of the suit when it was first instituted in 2024.
Court records show that the defamation case, registered as Milimani Commercial Courts Civil Suit No. E4789 of 2024, arises from remarks allegedly made during a live broadcast aired on Obinna’s YouTube channel in August 2024.
The plaintiffs claim the statements damaged DJ Kalonje’s professional reputation and business standing.
However, in documents filed before the court, Obinna argues that he was denied an opportunity to respond earlier because service of summons was effected through email addresses he no longer had access to.
According to his sworn affidavit, one of the emails belonged to his former workplace, Nation Media Group, which he left approximately four years before the alleged service, while another email address cited in the affidavit of service does not belong to him.
Obinna states that he only became aware of the suit in early March 2025, after his current advocates were served with court documents.
He subsequently entered appearance within days and moved the court seeking permission to regularise his defence, insisting that the delay was neither intentional nor meant to obstruct justice.
In his application, Obinna maintains that he has a substantive and arguable defence that raises triable issues, including the context in which the contested statements were made and the identity of the person referenced during the broadcast.
He argues that denying him the chance to be heard would violate his constitutional right to a fair hearing.
The plaintiffs, on their part, have quantified their claim at Ksh20 million, citing the wide reach of the online broadcast and the reputational harm allegedly suffered.
They have also accused Obinna of acting with malice and failing to issue an apology despite prior demand letters.
The court is now expected to determine whether service was properly effected and whether Obinna should be allowed to file his defence out of time.
The decision will determine whether the matter proceeds to a full hearing on the defamation claims or is resolved on procedural grounds.
