Court Restrains Sonko Over Claims Miguna Miguna Stole TVs and Suffered Machete Injury

Sonko must stop repeating allegations that Miguna Miguna stole televisions and refrigerators, although the court declined to order their immediate removal. The judge found that calling someone a criminal requires more than claiming you were simply returning the favour.

A Nairobi court has restrained former Nairobi Governor Mike Sonko from publishing defamatory statements about lawyer Miguna Miguna.

The decision followed allegations that Sonko portrayed Miguna as a burglar involved in stealing household appliances.

Justice Kennedy Kandet found that Sonko had provided no factual foundation for the criminal accusations.

He ruled that Miguna had established a prima facie case warranting protection pending determination of their defamation dispute.

The judge, however, declined to compel Sonko to remove existing publications from social media.

He also left allegations concerning threats and incitement to assault unresolved.

The ruling, delivered in late October, 2026, partially allowed Miguna’s application for an interlocutory injunction.

It offered an important reminder that public disagreements do not provide unlimited freedom to make criminal allegations.

The Accusations

The dispute erupted on March 3, 2026, following a public exchange over Sonko’s finances.

The former governor published a broadcast titled Mike Sonko’s Response to Miguna Miguna on the cash & money laundering claims.

Sonko allegedly opened with insults before making startling claims about Miguna’s past.

He accused the lawyer of breaking into houses and stealing televisions and refrigerators.

He further claimed Miguna’s father participated in the alleged criminal activities. Sonko also alleged that Miguna sustained a machete injury during one burglary.

Miguna dismissed the accusations as fabricated and calculated to destroy his professional reputation. He told the court that his father died while his mother was pregnant with him.

That account, he argued, made Sonko’s alleged father-and-son burglary partnership impossible.

Miguna subsequently issued libel notices dated March 5 and 6, demanding a retraction.

Instead, he alleged, Sonko repeated the accusations and declared he would not apologise.

Miguna then sought a KSh75 million award alongside injunctive relief.

No Evidence

Sonko defended his publications as a proportionate response to Miguna’s earlier accusations.

He maintained that Miguna had portrayed him as a money launderer, cartel operator and drug lord.

He invoked justification, fair comment and freedom of expression to defend his statements.

He also argued that Miguna’s public standing required considerable protection for political debate.

But Justice Kandet identified a fundamental weakness in that defence. Accusations about Sonko’s finances could not establish the truth of unrelated burglary allegations.

“The proposed justification must be assessed against the sting of those particular imputations,” the judge explained.

Sonko had identified no particular burglary, witness, investigation or supporting source.

Neither had he established any connection between Miguna and the alleged machete injury.

The judge also found that Sonko’s fair comment defence faced substantial difficulties. Claims that someone broke into houses and stole appliances amounted to factual allegations.

They were not simply opinions about Miguna’s criticism of Sonko’s financial affairs.

The judge consequently rejected the suggestion that calling something a response established legal privilege.

He nevertheless acknowledged that the circumstances and good faith of a response mattered.

However, an earlier attack did not automatically justify unrelated criminal accusations.

Reputation Matters

The court found that the allegations carried particular consequences for Miguna’s legal practice.

A practising advocate depends heavily on professional integrity and public confidence.

Miguna told the court that colleagues, clients and relatives had contacted him.

Their inquiries followed the circulation of Sonko’s allegations across social media platforms.

The judge considered those circumstances alongside the alleged repetition after legal notices.

He concluded that further publication threatened injury beyond ordinary financial loss.

“Further dissemination of the identified criminal accusations would extend an existing and serious interference with professional confidence,” he observed.

The court therefore found that damages alone might not adequately repair further reputational injury.

However, it declined to accept the claimed audience of millions without independent proof.

The judge also refused to treat actual loss of clients as established. Those questions, alongside Miguna’s compensation claim, remain for determination during trial.

The ruling also reaffirmed that public figures retain protection against defamatory allegations.

Political participation does not require anyone to surrender their legally protectable reputation.

Takedown Rejected

Despite finding grounds for protection, the judge declined Miguna’s immediate removal request.

The decision turned partly on how the application had framed the remedy.

Miguna had sought removal of existing publications pending determination of his application.

Separately, he requested protection against further publications throughout the substantive proceedings.

Justice Kandet found that the distinction was legally significant. Extending the removal order until trial would effectively grant different relief.

He emphasised that courts cannot rewrite the substantive remedies contained in pleadings.

Mandatory injunctions also require exceptional circumstances and stronger judicial assurance.

The judge therefore marked the takedown prayer spent without determining permanent removal.

That remedy remains available for consideration during the substantive defamation proceedings.

He similarly declined to determine allegations concerning threats and Miguna’s telephone number.

The application contained no distinct prayers seeking those particular remedies.

However, the judge acknowledged that incitement to violence falls outside constitutional protection.

He reserved the underlying factual and legal questions for appropriate determination.

The final order restrained Sonko from publishing further defamatory, scandalous or malicious statements concerning Miguna.

The court also directed that application costs would be determined within the substantive proceedings.

There is, however, an apparent tension between the judgement’s reasoning and final order.

READ ALSO: Royal Media Services Ordered to Pay KSh7 Million in Inooro FM Defamation Case

The judge had criticised blanket restrictions but ultimately used broad language without identifying specific allegations.

That discrepancy could raise questions about the injunction’s precise scope and enforcement.

Nevertheless, the ruling leaves Sonko facing interim restraint while the defamation dispute proceeds.

The court has not determined ultimate liability or awarded Miguna compensation.

Sonko retains the opportunity to establish his defences and counterclaim during trial.

PAY ATTENTION: Reach us at info@gotta.news.