A Siaya-based Journalist Josiah Odanga has sued Media Council of Kenya over defamation.
The court documents indicate that the case has been listed as Civil Case Number E 048 of 2024.
Josiah Odanga as the plaintiff while Media Council of Kenya as defendant.
Already the Journalist through his Lawyer Christine Mumbi Kiume, has served the Media Council of Kenya.
According to the sermon as seen by famousnakuru.co.ke, the MCK has 15 days to enter an appearance in the suit, failure to which the case shall proceed and judgement may be given in the absence of MCK.
“Please note that we have this 3 day of June 2024 served sermons to Media Council of Kenya. We have also served the court papers. This means they have 15 days to file defence failure of which we shall apply for what is known as interlocutory judgement,” stated Advocate Christine.
Odanga- a scribe with Radio Africa Group’s Star Newspaper, is seeking justice following an incident in which he was assaulted by colleagues while on duty.
According to court papers, on or about January 70, 2024, the Plaintiff attended a function at Karariw Primary School in Gem Constituency, presided over by the Honourable Member of Parliament for Gem Constituency, who was distributing bursary forms.
Other journalists were present on the premises, providing live coverage of the
ongoing events. At approximately 3:00 PM, after the conclusion of the speeches and as the crowd was almost dispersing, the Plaintiff, standing amongst his colleagues, was approached by Samuel Onyiengo (Samuel), a fellow journalist, who isolated him to the back of the V.I.P tent and initiated a conversation.
Shortly thereafter, George Ochieng Amollo (George), also a journalist,
followed the Plaintiff and Samuel to the spot where they were standing.
George interrupted the conversation and began to insult the Plaintiff.
Tensions escalated and Mary Goretti Juma (Mary) joined the gathering with
the Plaintiff, shouting at the Plaintiff and demanding he stops discussing her
matters in a WhatsApp group of which the Plaintiff is a member. In the process, the plaintiff was attacked and sustained injuries.
The Plaintiff reported the matter to the Siaya Police Station on the very day of
the attack and was treated at the Siaya Referral Hospital” He obtained a P3
form confirming his injuries.T
The police in Siaya referred the matter back to the police at Yala Police Station in Gem Constituency (Gem Sub County) where the Plaintiff and his witnesses formally recorded statements on January 3,2024.
Mary was charged with unlawful assault occasioning actual bodily harm,
contrary to section 25L of the Penal Code.
George was charged with offensive
conduct – use of abusive words – with the intent to provoke a breach of the
peace, contrary to section 94(1) ofthe Penal Code.
It should be noted that there is an ongoing Criminal Court Case against Mary and George MCCR/EI56/2O24 REPUBLIC v GEORGE AMOLLO & MARY ODHIAMBO.
The defendant issued press statements following the incident.
The first Press Statement was issued on January 23, 2024, just three days
after the attack on the Plaintiff where the Defendant gave a blanket condemnation, stating that all the three persons involved in the attack (the
Plaintiff, George and Mary) were on the wrong based on their completed investigations.
The Plaintiff reckons that after the attack the Defendant dispatched one of its
employees to investigate the matter on January 22,2024.
Another statement by defendant on January 23 and signed by the Defendant’s CEO David Omwoyo, did not underscore that the matter was under investigation by the police despite the Plaintiff having informed the Employee as such.
The Plaintiff avers that the Defendant has no mandate and jurisdiction to investigate criminal matters and issue a determination. He contends that the Plaintiff should have waited for the police report before issuing the Press Statement.
He noted that the Defendant has a Media Complaints Commission that is legally mandated to investigate and determine disputes amongst journalists, especially on matters bordering on ethics.
The Plaintiff was deeply disturbed by the Defendant’s actions and the claims
made in the press statement associating him with handouts.
He recalls that during the summoned meeting, he was questioned about the issue of handouts. He responded by stating that handouts are not uncommon in the journalism industry and that he has witnessed several journalists receiving them.
The Plaintiff asserts that he never admitted to taking any handouts at the event nor was he involved in any altercation over handouts with his assailants.
The Defendant’s decision to publish the Press Statements – which we’re further
broadcasted by various sections of the press – was seen as a deliberate attempt
to smear the Plaintiff’s reputation and sabotage his career.
The Plaintiff lodged an appeal with the Defendant’s Complaints Commission
and the Kisumu Regional Coordinator but is yet to receive any feedback.
Following the advisory issued by the Defendant in the press statements, the
Plaintiff was subsequently suspended from his job by his employer – Radio
Africa Group.
The Plaintiff acknowledges that his employer’s decision to suspend him aligns with the Defendant’s advisory.
Nevertheless, the Plaintiff feels that he has been treated unfairly, especially
since his attackers remain employed and have faced no consequences for their
actions.
He perceives himself as the victim in this situation, enduring punishment for the wrongdoing of his assailants.
With a young family and aging parents to support and dreams yet to be
achieved, the Plaintiff’s suspended job, which provided his livelihood, plunges
him and his family into financial hardship and uncertainty.
His lawyer argues that the Defendant’s Press Statements soiled the reputation of Plaintiff making it difficult to secure any other job despite the heavy financial investment his family and fellow villagers put to enable him acquire an education and qualify as a journalist.
In addition, the Plaintiff has suffered prejudice as he has since been shunned by a section of right-thinking members of the society.
“The Plaintiff is a journalist of high repute who has steadily practiced journalism for the past five years without contravening any of the Code of Conduct for the Practice of Journalism in Kenya as is spelled out in the Media Council Act, 2023,” reads part of the court papers.
PARTICULARS OF MALICE ANP BAD FAITH
a. The Defendant broadcasted words about the Plaintiff that were both false
and defamatory;
b. The Defendant broadcasted the utterances about the Plaintiff recklessly
by stating he confessed to a matter which the Plaintiff only gave his opinion;
c. The Defendant broadcasted that the Plaintiff confessed to a crime which
the Plaintiff only commented on;
d. The Defendant in broadcasting the defamatory words about the Plaintiff,
purposely abstained from inquiring into the facts or from availing themselves of means of information at hand when the slightest inquiry would reveal that the Plaintiff was the victim in the attack;
e. The Defendant never bothered to seek an explanation on any of the issues raised in the complaints from the Plaintiff;
f. The Defendant did not attempt to investigate the matter nor find out the
facts;
g. The Defendant lacked the legal mandate to interrogate and pass
judgment on the matter; and
h. The Defendant did not give the Plaintiff an opportunity for a fair hearing;
The PIaintiff claims exemplary damages for libel based on among others the press statements. The Plaintiff avers that the same were not issued in good
faith and the whole process was geared towards finding him guilty yet he is a
victim in this matter.
The Plaintiff avers that the defamatory words as publicly made by the
Defendant herein as it relates to the Plaintiff could not have been made by a
fair person, no matter how prejudiced, however, exaggerated and obstinate
unless the same was actuated by malice on the part of the Defendant.
Despite the complaints lodged with the Defendant’s complaints commission
and the Kisumu Regional Coordinator the Defendant has declined and/or
refused to retract the impugned press statement or render an apology.
No other suits are pending and there have been no previous proceedings in
any court between the Plaintiff and the Defendants over the same subject
matter.
For the above reasons, the Plaintiff is praying for judgment against the Defendant for:
a. A permanent injunction directed to the Defendant from defaming, or in
any way slandering or publishing any defamatory or untrue statements against the Plaintiff;
b. An order that the Defendant do retract and withdraw the press statements and render unqualified apology in terms acceptable to the PIaintiff to be broadcast by the Defendant in the same prominence as the press statements;
c. General damages for slander;
d. Exemplary damages for Defamation;
e. Aggravated damages for Defamation
f . Costs of the suit;
g, Interest in (c), (d) (e) & (f) above at court rates from the date of
Judgment until payment in full.