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.

By Andrew Kariuki 

The High Court has dismissed an application by lawyer Nelson Havi seeking to terminate a defamation suit filed against him by fellow advocate Danstan Omari, clearing the way for the case to proceed.

In its ruling delivered in Nairobi, the court declined Havi’s request to strike out the suit, finding that the application was procedurally defective and could not be sustained.

Advocate Havi had moved to court seeking a raft of orders, including the striking out of a memorandum of appearance filed on his behalf by Osundwa & Co. Advocates, the setting aside of proceedings conducted between January and June 2025 and the invalidation of a request for interlocutory judgment filed by Omari.

He also sought a declaration that the suit had abated on the basis that summons to enter appearance were not extracted or served within the time required under the Civil Procedure Rules and in the alternative, requested that the matter be transferred to the Chief Magistrate’s Court at Milimani.

In his application, Havi argued that the failure to issue and serve summons rendered the suit incompetent, and further claimed that he had not instructed Osundwa & Co. Advocates to act on his behalf in the matter.

Omari opposed the application, maintaining that the advocates were properly on record for Havi and had actively participated in the proceedings by filing pleadings, attending court mentions and engaging in discussions aimed at resolving interlocutory issues.

Before considering the substantive arguments on whether the suit had abated, the court first addressed the question of whether Havi’s application was properly before it.

The judge found that at all material times, Osundwa & Co. Advocates remained the firm on record for Havi, and that no proper Notice of Change of Advocates had been filed to allow Havi & Co. Advocates to come on record in accordance with Order 9 of the Civil Procedure Rules.

The court further held that Havi had failed to provide sufficient evidence to support his claim that he had not instructed the firm that had entered appearance on his behalf.

In the absence of compliance with the procedural requirements governing representation, the court found the application to be incompetent and declined to consider the merits of the arguments relating to the alleged failure to issue and serve summons.

The High Court consequently dismissed the application with costs to Omari, allowing the defamation suit to proceed to hearing.