BY SAM ALFAN.
Nation Media Group has been ordered to pay city lawyer Danstan Omari over Sh9 million for defamation.
Milimani Commercial Principal Magistrate B. Cheloti awarded the lawyer general damages of Sh6 million and aggravated damages of Sh3 million over an article they published both print on page 11 and online Daily Nation dated 6 January, 2021.
The court found that the article titled: “Cheers and boos: Here are the best and worst public communicators of 2021”.
“I am of the view that the Plaintiff herein has argued his case beyond a balance of probabilities. He has satisfied the threshold required for the tort of defamation to succussed as has met all the key ingredients required,” ruled the Magistrate.
The court found that the newspaper’s acts were defamatory and hence damaging to Omari’s reputation.
Other than paying him damages, the court issued a permanent injunction restraining the newspaper from publishing or writing any defamatory statements regarding lawyer Omari.
The Magistrate further ordered the newspaper to publish an apology and retract the defamatory article and offer an unconditional apology of a whole page in the newspaper.
Lawyer Omari argued that he came across the defamatory article from a lawyers’ WhatsApp forum comprising senior and brilliant colleagues of the bar.
He argued that the newspaper’s publication was heavily laden with malice and obtuseness with the direct Intent of damaging reputation, his professional standing in society.
The lawyer said the publication caused deleterious effects to his business and practice as an advocate, a political analyst, and senior law lecturer at the time.
The newspaper, he said, did not respond to his demands despite being served with a letter stating the intention to sue.
During cross-examination, he said he resigned as a law lecturer on 31 May, 2022 whilst the article had been published on 6th January, 2022. He resigned from Catholic University because of the publication.
He was both managing partner and proprietor of the law firm where he practices.
His partner joined elective politics and is a Member of Parliament. The publication had indicated his cases were likely to fail.
Some of his clients have left his services and he has since lost briefs because he had been portrayed as a poor communicator. He averred his esteem had been lowered by the said publication.
During re-examination, he said before resigning, he had taught as a lecturer for 10 years. As an advocate, he pushed his clients agenda through communication being branded the worst communicator affected his career.
He averred the publication crushed what he had built for over 40 years.
However, the newspaper has challenged the magistrate decision and faulting his decision on various issues.
According to the newspaper, the Magistrate erred in law and fact in granting a permanent injunction when the same was not warranted.
The newspaper fault the magistrate for granting a permanent injunction which was bad in law and ordering a full page apology without any legal basis and due regard to the size and format of the subject Article in question.
The newspaper proposes the court for orders that the appeal be allowed and the suit against the paper In the trial Court be dismissed with costs or the award of damages made by the trial Court be varied and reduced to the extent that the court deems fit.
