Kimani Ichung'wah loses defamation appeal in KSh11m Koinange Street case

The High Court rejected Kikuyu MP Kimani Ichung’wah's effort to remove restrictions in a KSh 11 million defamation lawsuit. The incident...

• The High Court rejected Kikuyu MP Kimani Ichung’wah's effort to remove restrictions in a KSh 11 million defamation lawsuit.
• The incident originated from a tweet where he is said to have called lawyer Danstan Omari a "Koinange Street lawyer," a statement that Omari claims has harmed his reputation and family life.
• Justice Asenath Ongeri supported the injunction, stating that the lower court properly used legal principles to safeguard Omari's dignity.

Kikuyu MP Kimani Ichung’wah faced a legal setback when a Nairobi court refused to remove restrictions placed in a KSh 11 million defamation case initiated by attorney Danstan Omari.

The situation stemmed from Ichung'wah's supposed mention of Omari as a "Koinange Street lawyer," a statement shared on Twitter (formerly X), which Omari asserts associated him with the red-light area and threatened both his professional standing and personal life.

"The disputed tweet from the defendant, posted on February 1, 2023, could damage my family life, as I am a married man and a father," Omari expressed sorrowfully.

On October 6, 2023, a judicial officer issued a legal order preventing Ichung’wah from issuing or repeating remarks considered damaging to Omari's standing.

Ichung’wah, the National Assembly Majority Leader, sought to challenge the decision via attorney Cecil Miller, aiming to stop the process and remove the gag order.

In his initial legal attire, Omari claimed that the MP depicted him as unethical by referring to him as a Koinange Street lawyer.

Ichung'wah challenged the injunction, describing it as excessive, unwarranted, and a violation of his constitutional right to free speech.

He argued that the magistrate did not reference particular defamatory remarks, making the rulings unclear, too broad, and in violation of the constitution.

Via Miller, he further contended that the lower court incorrectly applied the legal standard for issuing an injunction in defamation cases.

He argued that public individuals such as Omari must face examination and severe criticism, cautioning that the directives might cause courts to become tools for suppressing political expression.

As a reply, Omari claimed that Ichung’wah was utilizing political discussion as a pretext to disseminate damaging lies that sought to undermine his reputation with clients, colleagues, and the general public.

Omari informed the court that Ichung’wah had initiated a continuous effort of hostility that only legal action could stop.

"Although the Respondent acknowledges that the Appellant has the right to free speech, this should not be exploited to disseminate false information aimed at damaging others. Under the guise of fair comment, constructive criticism, or what he refers to as 'legitimate political discussion,' it is equally crucial for the Appellant to understand and accept that the Respondent also has the same freedom, provided it remains within legal boundaries," he mentioned in his arguments.

Omari mentioned that while freedom of speech is safeguarded, it doesn't allow for defamation and should be balanced with others' rights to respect and reputation.

He requested the Supreme Court to dismiss the appeal, contending that removing the orders would leave him vulnerable to additional deliberate assaults.

As the appeal continued, Miller & Company Advocates, representing Ichung’wah, submitted a Certificate of Urgency to halt the lower court's proceedings.

Nevertheless, Justice Asenath Ongeri rejected the appeal along with expenses, deciding that the magistrate had appropriately applied judicial judgment in granting the restraining orders.

She concluded that the lower court had used the appropriate legal criteria for defamation and injunctive relief, and that there were no legal or procedural mistakes justifying the High Court's involvement.