The High Court has found a media house liable for defamation and awarded Sh2.5 million in general damages to a Nairobi pastor and his wife over a 2015 publication, while declining to grant an injunction or order an apology.
In a judgment delivered on February 12, 2026, Justice H.M. Ng’ang’a ruled that the article titled “Why I’m Divorcing Pastor Ng’ang’a” was defamatory, selectively reported and constructed from untested pleadings in custody proceedings.
The consolidated suit stemmed from a January 30, 2015 front-page and page 4 story in The Nairobian, which drew from pleadings filed in children’s custody cases between Pastor James Maina Ng’ang’a and his wife, Loise Murugi Maina.
The couple had sought a permanent injunction restraining further publications, an apology across media platforms, general and aggravated damages, and other reliefs.
They argued that the story portrayed the first plaintiff, a pastor at Neno Evangelism Centre, as an abusive drunkard and womanizer, while depicting the second plaintiff as a person of questionable character. They contended that the publication was malicious, full of falsehoods and intended to embarrass them. The pastor further claimed that about 1,000 congregants left his church following the story.
The defendant media house denied the claims, maintaining that the report was a fair and accurate account of matters contained in public court records and was protected under the doctrine of qualified privilege. A senior reporter testified that the pastor was a public figure and that the issues raised were of legitimate public interest.
Although the story drew from court pleadings, the judge noted that the matters had not been heard in open court and were still at a preliminary stage.
Citing the Court of Appeal decision in J.P. Machira t/a Machira & Co. Advocates v Mwangi & another, the court held that documents not formally raised in open court are generally not amenable to publication under the shield of absolute privilege.
Justice Ng’ang’a found that The Nairobian failed to meet the threshold of fair and accurate reporting, observing that the article largely extracted and highlighted allegations from one party’s pleadings without giving equal prominence to the response of the other. The selective presentation, the court held, amounted to malicious reporting.
The judge further observed that the publication framed the dispute as a divorce proceeding, yet the cases relied upon concerned custody of a minor.
The court, however, declined to grant a permanent injunction, holding that the prayer was too broad and would unduly curtail freedom of expression. The judge relied on principles set out in Giella v Cassman Brown and subsequent authorities cautioning against sweeping gag orders in defamation matters.
The claim for aggravated damages was also rejected, with the court finding no evidence of cynical or profit-driven malice to warrant such an award. The prayer for a public apology was declined on the grounds that no prior demand for an apology had been demonstrated.
Ultimately, the court awarded the couple Sh2.5 million in general damages, together with costs and interest from the date of judgment, bringing to a close a dispute arising from the 2015 publication.
Leave a comment