Two Kenyans living in the UK have been ordered by a London court to pay over Sh3.6 million
Two Kenyans living in the UK have been ordered by a London court to pay over Sh3.6 million (£26,516) in damages for defaming a lawyer through their community online social website known as www.misterseed.com.
Sources
in London, UK indicate that A Queen’s Counsel at the Queen’s Bench
Division of the Supreme Court of Justice, Mr Master Kay (Q.C) who
presided over the case in which a Kenyan father and his son have been
accused of libel, ordered Mr Peter Njiiri Karanja popularly known in the
UK as ‘Misterseed’ after the name of his website, and his son Jackson
Njiiri Karanja, to pay the lawyer, Mr David Muroki Kague £20,000 in
damages for defaming him through their website.
The
court has also issued an order for two separate awards £2,286 and £3,655
in favour of Mr Kague in legal costs. The £3,655 has however become the
subject of an appeal process.
It is reported that Mr
Kague who practices law in the UK with the firm of Moorehouse Solicitors
in North West London represented himself in his suit against Mr Kiruthi
and Mr Karanja who are father and son respectively, for defamatory
postings published through www.misterseed.com falsely claiming that Mr Kague had dishonestly taken money from people.
In
the suit papers Mr Kague denied he had ever taken any money from anyone
dishonestly and submitted that the defamatory allegations against him
were a creation emanating from business rivalry and enmity between him
and some other Kenyans in the UK whose only intention was to undermine
him as a business person and as a member of the legal profession, in the
minds of right thinking members of the society.
The
case is being followed keenly in the Diaspora Community especially in
the US and the UK because cases of libel and defamation have been on the
rise since the mushrooming of self-styled community web sites whose
owners have little background in journalism.
Since the
proliferation of unregulated social media sometimes referred to as
alternative press both at home and abroad, some of these online news
sources have been used by their proprietors to either solicit money or
settle scores.
Conned people money
Handing
out judgment Master Kay (Q.C) said that Mr Kiruthi and Mr Karanja
defamed Mr Kague on the internet through postings falsely claiming that
he (Mr Kague) was a dishonest person and had conned people money in the
UK.
In his judgment Master Kay said that despite Mr
Kiruthi and Mr Karanja being given ample opportunity to adduce evidence
linking Mr Kague to any dishonest activities they failed to produce any
evidence hence the defence attempts they made were “utterly hopeless and
without merit” in the absence of any evidence being produced in court.
Master
Kay said that having not been able to defend themselves, Mr Kiruthi and
Mr Karanja were liable for libel and could not challenge Mr Kague’s
claim against them.
Master Kay said the court agreed
that Mr Kague had been deliberately or carelessly defamed and that he
had suffered the natural consequences of defamation, namely that he had
suffered distress and had been held to ridicule. Mr Kague, the judge
said, was a British subject and had a reputation to be protected under
UK law.
The court ruled that after considering all that
had been put before it by the parties Mr Kague did not appear to have
done anything to warrant the attack upon his reputation.
The
court said that instead of making any attempts to apologise, or showing
remorse, it was “deplorable” that Mr Kiruthi and Mr Karanja had gone
ahead to allege in court that Mr Kague had fraudulently invented the
claim against them so as to make money from them.
Awarding
Mr Kague £20,000 in damages for libel, Master Kay said he could only
award such a low level of damages because it was difficult to assess the
extent of the defamation on the basis that the readership of the
website could not be ascertained as would have been possible had the
case been against a well known newspaper.
No comments:
Post a Comment