HomeBusinessCrime WatchMain StoryNational NewsNewsWorld News

High Court dismisses defamation case filed against The Informer Media Group with cost

Media house argued that the issues the petitioner wanted determined lie within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Communications and Multimedia Appeals Tribunal and/or Data Commissioner

The High Court has dismissed with costs to the respondents a petition filed by Nairobi businessman against the Informer Media Group and one of its journalists accusing them of publishing a defamatory statement that injured his reputation.

Justice Lawrence Mugambi dismissed the petition by Joey Maina Motiga stating that he should have exhausted all the legal remedies provided for by the Constitution before running to the High Court for help.

Apart from the media house and the reporter, Stanley Lugalia, Motiga had also sued Google IncGoogle Kenya Limited, and Safaricom Plc over the publication of the online story that he averred injured his reputation – which was a violation of his constitutional right.

The story related to a case at the Kibera law courts where Motiga and Beatrice Njeri Chege were charged with theft of motorcycles amounting to Ksh 10 million in an intricate syndicate allegedly involving a former motorcycle sales agent turned dealer.

The respondents, however, objected to the court hearing the petition saying the proceedings had offended the doctrine of exhaustion given the fact that the matters raised were largely complaints within the meaning of Section 102A of the Kenya Information and Communications Act.

 The Informer Media Group had argued that the issues the petitioner wanted determined lie within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Communications and Multimedia Appeals Tribunal and/or Data Commissioner which he bypassed to go to the High Court.

According to Justice Mugambi, Mr Maina should have sought intervention at the Complaints and Dispute Resolution and if not satisfied, moved to the Communications and Media Appeals Tribunal for redress.

See also  IEBC extends timelines for political parties to conduct primaries

The judge noted that there exists another sufficient and adequate avenue to resolve a dispute saying that, “party ought not to trivialise the jurisdiction of the Constitutional Court by bringing actions that could be dealt with effectively in that other fora.”

He said there was no way the petitioner could pass the ‘jurisdictional test’ required in a constitutional dispute.

“The court declines the jurisdiction to entertain this petition on the basis of the doctrine of Constitutional avoidance and exhaustion of remedies,” the Judge said.

Related Articles

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Back to top button
error: Content is protected !!