“In this case, the plaintiff failed to satisfy the court that his good character and reputation or profession was put to doubt by the publication or broadcast,” the judge said in her ruling. “I say so because it is not unusual in some rare cases to find a plaintiff who can be libel proof, meaning he or she has a reputation so tarnished that it couldn’t be brought any lower, even by the publication of false statements of fact and concerning him or her. It was therefore important that the plaintiff in this case show that he was not that ‘libel proof’ person. That he has a good reputation to protect,” ruled the judge.
Despite the fact that Miguna is a practicing advocate of the High Court of Kenya, the ruling poured cold water on his decision to represent himself, since as the Kiswahili saying goes, mganga hajigangi.
Passaris may have had a point in calling Miguna a rapist.
I think the judge was wrong. Libel is actionable if the words complained of, by themselves have the effect of lowering that person’s estimation in the eyes of right thinking members of society.
It was up to Miguna to demonstrate that effect. All the EAStandard had done was to report that Miguna’s maid had filed a complaint, and it also published Miguna’s convoluted explanations including his wild allegations about people out to finish him. It is OK to think, but perhaps even better to read the suit in its entirety:
[ol]
[li]All said and done, as the plaintiff did not prove his case against the defendants, jointly and severally on a balance of probabilities, I hereby dismiss the suit as filed against all the defendants and award him nothing.[/li][li]Costs of the suit follow the event as espoused in section 27 of the Civil Procedure Act and to the successful party. They are however, awarded in the discretion of the court. In this case, there is no reason why the defendants who were dragged into court and who have spent time and money defending a zealously yet hopelessly prosecuted case cannot be compensated by an award of costs. Accordingly, I hereby award costs of this dismissed suit to the defendants.[/li][/ol]
I was specifically responding to this line of reasoning:-
“I say so because it is not unusual in some rare cases to find a plaintiff who can be libel proof, meaning he or she has a reputation so tarnished that it couldn’t be brought any lower, even by the publication of false statements of fact and concerning him or her. It was therefore important that the plaintiff in this case show that he was not that ‘libel proof’ person. That he has a good reputation to protect,” ruled the judge.
Have I not insisted that the test to apply in determining whether words are defamatory is if the words complained of, by themselves, have the effect of lowering that person’s estimation in the eyes of right thinking members of society?
Is that the test for defamation or not?
If it is, then what the hell is that judge talking about plaintiffs being libel-proof?
And who asked the judge to include all that irrelevant hee-haw s/he was blubbering on about?
As I said, Miguna represented himself in the suit, and part of his ‘evidence’ consisted of statements he had personally handed to the media. He should have been suing his househelp and proving that she was planning to poison him under the instructions of JaKuon.
The judge correctly characterized this suit as vexatious and the plaintiff being libel-proof for bringing to court nonsense based on what he had told the media to publish.
“What value is there in killing Miguna or any human being? Miguna should find better ways to market and sell his books instead of dragging Raila’s name in his domestic issues,” said Bett.
Miguna said on learning about the plot, he immediately terminated the house-help early yesterday morning and paid her Sh10,000 for her February salary. He confiscated her phone in order to aid police investigations. He did not indicate if he confiscated the poison.
“There was no physical contact between me or my nephew and her,” Miguna said. He claims the “agents” and “top ODM officials” kept calling the phone which he had confiscated and that the house-help entered the home of a senior ODM cabinet minister in his Runda neighborhood.
Miguna said that the Millicent later returned to his house with two junior police officers while he was away at a police station recording a statement about the incident.
"However, when invited inside, she boarded a motor-cycle, which she had come with, panicked and left,” Miguna said. He claimed the lady “went straight” to the Office of Prime Minister to be debriefed.
So that means yesterday was aset up by Jeff Koinange hence the back -stage footage? Last time it was Mbugua, this time is Miguna. I keep losing respect for Jeff Koinange guy every day.
