Controversial businessman Jared Otieno loses bid to pull down stories published by Nation Media Group
Magistrate cites section 4 (2) of the Limitation of Actions Act (Cap. 22), which provides that an action for libel or slander may not be brought after the end of 12 months from the date it took place.

Controversial city businessman-cum-politician Jared Otieno Kiasa has suffered a major blow after a Nairobi court rejected his plea to have his alleged defamatory articles published by The Nation Media Group to be pulled down.
In her ruling, Milimani Commercial Magistrate Becky Cheloti said Kiasa was time barred in filing the suit.
She cited section 4 (2) of the Limitation of Actions Act (Cap. 22), which provides that an action for libel or slander may not be brought after the end of 12 months from the date it took place.
“It would be absurd for slanderous remarks to be made about a person and he/she waits until he/she feels the effect thereof to file an action in court. If this be the case then there would be no need for any limitation period to be specified,” the magistrate noted.
The magistrate further noted that the alleged libelous remarks were published on May 18, 2021, May 16, 2019, August 26, 2020, April 13, 2022, March 23 2019, June 16 2020 and September 5 2021 and May 11 2023 and the case was thus statute bared and no relief prayed towards it can be granted.
“Whether an injunction can be issued where the defamatory words have not been captured in the prayer seeking injunction relief,” she added.
The application was supported by a notice of motion and the supporting affidavit of the applicant herein sworn on October 17, 2024.
Kiasa filed an application seeking an injunction orders be issued compelling Nation Media Group to temporarily but immediately suspend, pull down, expunge and erase from all forms of media including print, broadcast, digital and social media any form or nature whatsoever of the programme of similar words or statements or contents of like effects relating to him.
Pending the hearing of the interparte and determination of the suit an order restraining the said company by themselves or their agents or anyone acting on their behalf from writing, publishing, broadcasting or republishing any defamatory information in any manner whatsoever about the plaintiff.
The magistrate noted the High Court ruling in Francis Atwoli and 5 others versus Kazungu Kambi and 3 others (2015) eKLR, Justice Mabeya faced a similar prayer in a Notice of Motion Application, as prayer before the court
and his closing remarks the judge stated that,
“Even if the plaintiff was successful it would have been difficult to give the orders as sought. The orders sought at the beginning of this ruling are too wide. I am doubtful if a court of law directing its mind properly can issue such an order. The order is too general, wide, imprecise and incapable of comprehension…,”
Regarding to the ruling of the High Court, the magistrate said “I entirely agree with justice Mabeya’s decision on the issuance of an injunction order in a defamatory case. It must be spelt out what the respondent should be injucted from saying.”
In view of the manner in which the prayers seeking injunctive relief are drafted herein, and also taking note parties are bound by prayers, the prayer as drafted cannot be granted since it fails to precisely capture and exactitude the alleged defamatory words to be restrained.
The magistrate also dismissed the application by Kiasa dated October 17 last year, adding costs will be determined in the suit.