The Court of Appeal upheld KSh7 million in damages after Inooro FM accused a Nakuru land registrar of corruption. Judges found that a court-ordered land transfer undermined the allegations, rejecting the broadcaster’s reliance on public interest and freedom of expression.
Royal Media Services must pay KSh7 million after losing an appeal over defamatory broadcasts aired on Inooro FM.
The Court of Appeal upheld damages awarded to former Nakuru Land Registrar Kenneth Kariuki Githii.
The dispute centred on allegations that he corruptly transferred land belonging to an elderly purchaser.
In a judgement delivered on September 25, 2026, three appellate judges dismissed the broadcaster’s appeal.
They upheld KSh5 million in general damages and KSh2 million in aggravated damages. The company must also pay the respondent’s costs of the appeal.
The decision offers a pointed reminder about the limits of press freedom. Public interest cannot automatically shield allegations lacking an adequate factual foundation.
The Corruption Claim
The dispute arose from Inooro FM’s Kwamba Ndurika programme in May 2006. Presented in Kikuyu by Professor Ngugi Njoroge and Ndiritu Wachira, the programme examined a contested land transaction.
The broadcasts concerned Anthony Gathua Kariuki, an elderly man from Subukia, who allegedly purchased land from Peter Njogu Muchemi.
The presenters claimed Muchemi’s wife subsequently obtained the property through the Nakuru Land Registrar.
The disputed parcel was identified as Bahati/Bahati Block 1/97. The presenters questioned the transaction and accused the registrar of corruption.
Their message was blunt. The translated broadcast declared, “This is corruption.”
The presenters also questioned the registrar’s competence and criticised his alleged response to the complainant.
During the final broadcast, they reportedly threatened to visit the Nakuru Lands Office and eject him.
Githii argued that the allegations portrayed him as dishonest, corrupt, and unfit for public office.
He said they damaged his professional reputation and exposed him to humiliation.
But the registrar offered a crucial explanation. He maintained that the transfer followed orders issued in Nakuru Chief Magistrate’s Court Case No. 1 of 1998.
Those orders required the property’s transfer to the persons specified by the court. Githii argued that he had performed his official duties rather than engineered a corrupt transaction.
That distinction became central to the appeal.
Evidence Under Scrutiny
Githii sued Royal Media Services in High Court Civil Suit No. 238 of 2006. On June 10, 2021, Justice Rachel Ngetich found the broadcasts defamatory and awarded KSh7 million.
The broadcaster challenged the decision, disputing publication, liability, available defences and damages.
It argued that Githii had produced neither recordings nor independent witnesses to establish the broadcasts.
Royal Media Services called its legal officer, Njenga Njehia, as a witness. However, Njehia acknowledged joining the company in 2012, six years after the broadcasts.
He therefore lacked personal knowledge of the programmes. Employees associated with the broadcasts remained at the company, yet none testified.
The broadcaster also failed to produce relevant programme records or archive evidence. The judges considered these omissions but did not treat them as automatic proof of liability.
They emphasised that the claimant retained the legal burden of proving defamation. However, the absence of recordings did not make publication impossible to establish.
Githii had identified the station, programme, presenters, dates, language, and substance of the allegations.
The court found his detailed testimony sufficient to prove publication on a balance of probabilities.
The judges also rejected the argument that the trial court had improperly shifted the burden of proof.
The broadcaster’s missing witnesses informed the evidence assessment rather than replacing the claimant’s case.
Press Freedom Tested
Royal Media Services argued that the broadcasts addressed public administration. It invoked qualified privilege, fair comment, and constitutional protections for freedom of expression.
The appellate judges recognised that public officials must face scrutiny. But they distinguished legitimate criticism from unsupported accusations of corruption.
The judgement delivered a clear warning:
“Neither freedom of expression nor freedom of the media confers a licence to publish defamatory statements without the factual or legal foundation required to sustain the defences invoked.”
Qualified privilege does not automatically protect every statement concerning public officials.
Fair comment likewise requires a qualifying opinion supported by an adequate factual foundation.
The judges found that the broadcasts went beyond questioning administrative efficiency. They directly accused Githii of corruption over a specific land transaction.
Evidence that the transfer followed a court order weakened the accusation’s factual foundation. The broadcaster failed to establish a defence sufficient to defeat the claim.
The court also rejected arguments that listeners could not identify the registrar.
References to the Nakuru Land Registrar were sufficient for listeners familiar with the circumstances to understand whom the programme targeted.
Damages Upheld
Royal Media Services argued that KSh5 million in general damages was excessive.
It proposed KSh500,000 instead and challenged the separate aggravated damages award.
The judges declined to interfere with the trial court’s assessment. They considered the allegation’s seriousness, Githii’s public office, and the radio’s capacity to reach large audiences.
Accusations of corruption strike directly at a land registrar’s professional integrity.
Repeated broadcasts can compound reputational harm and weaken public confidence.
Aggravated damages required more than proof of publication alone.
The judges considered the repeated broadcasts, absence of a commensurate correction, and failure to explain the continuation of the allegations.
They found no reason to reduce either award. The KSh7 million judgement therefore remained intact, alongside the costs and interest ordered by the High Court.
READ ALSO: Safaricom Wins Court Battle Against KSh1.2 Million-a-Month Manager Fired Over Data Allegations
The ruling does not prohibit forceful journalism or scrutiny of public officials. It reinforces the need to verify allegations before presenting them as fact.
For broadcasters, the practical lesson is equally clear. Court orders, programme recordings and editorial records can become critical evidence when reporting disputes reach court.
Royal Media Services lost its appeal in full. Githii retained his KSh7 million award, with additional appeal costs.
The broader message is unmistakable: public interest demands scrutiny, but scrutiny must not become a licence for unsupported accusations.
PAY ATTENTION: Reach us at info@gotta.news.
