By Andrew Kariuki
Televangelist Apostle James Ng’ang’a and his wife, Loise Murugi Maina, have been awarded Ksh2.5 million in general damages after a Milimani Commercial Court found that a 2015 publication by Standard Media Group was defamatory.
In a judgment delivered by Magistrate H.M. Ng’ang’a, the court held that an article published on January 30, 2015, under the headline “Why I’m Divorcing Pastor Ng’ang’a,” contained statements that were injurious to the couple’s reputation.
The court identified several phrases in the publication, including references to the pastor as a “thief turned man of God,” an “abusive drunkard,” and a “womanizer,” and found that such descriptions were defamatory when viewed from the standpoint of an ordinary reasonable person.
“From the perspective of an ordinary and reasonable person, it is apparent that the publication was defamatory, and would otherwise lower the thinking of the Plaintiffs in the eyes of the ordinary, reasonable person,” the court held.
The court further noted that although the publication was based on material drawn from court documents, the media house could not rely on the defence of qualified privilege.
The magistrate found that the proceedings referenced in the article had not been canvassed in open court at the time of publication.
“Until documents are formally put on the floor or raised in open court or become the subject of attention of the judge, they would not be amenable to publication in a newspaper,” the magistrate stated.
Evidence before the court showed that the article included a wedding photograph of the couple and made allegations suggesting a criminal past on the part of Apostle Ng’ang’a.
The plaintiffs told the court that the publication had significant reputational impact, including a reported decline in church attendance, with about 1,000 congregants leaving Neno Evangelism Centre.
Standard Media Group, in its defence, argued that the publication was protected under the principles of public interest, fair comment, and qualified privilege as provided for under Sections 6 and 7 of the Defamation Act.
The media house also maintained that it used cautionary language such as “alleges” and “claims” in its reporting.
However, the court found that the publication did not meet the threshold for fair and balanced reporting.
It held that the article selectively relied on one party’s pleadings without presenting the opposing side, thereby skewing the narrative.
The court also observed that the matter had been framed as a divorce dispute, yet the underlying proceedings were at a preliminary stage and had not been fully heard.
“This selective publication fails to meet the threshold for journalistic fairness, more so when considered in light of the fact that the proceedings were yet to proceed beyond the preliminary stage,” the court noted.
While awarding Ksh2.5 million in general damages, the court declined to grant a permanent injunction against the media house, citing the need to balance protection of reputation with constitutional guarantees of press freedom.
The court also rejected claims for aggravated damages and an order for a published apology, noting that no prior demand for an apology had been made before the suit was filed.
Standard Media Group was granted a 30 day stay of execution of the judgment.
