- Kikuyu MP Kimani Ichung’wah’s attempt to lift gag orders in a KSh 11 million defamation case was dismissed by the High Court
- The case stems from a tweet in which he allegedly referred to lawyer Danstan Omari as a “Koinange Street lawyer,” a remark Omari says damaged his reputation and family life
- Justice Asenath Ongeri upheld the injunction, ruling that the lower court had correctly applied legal principles in protecting Omari’s dignity
Kikuyu MP Kimani Ichung’wah has been dealt a legal blow after a Nairobi court declined to lift gag orders imposed in a KSh 11 million defamation suit filed by lawyer Danstan Omari.
Source: Facebook
The case arose from Ichung’wah’s alleged reference to Omari as a “Koinange Street lawyer,” a remark made on Twitter (formerly X), which Omari claims linked him to the red-light district and jeopardised both his legal career and family life.
“The impugned tweet by the defendant dated February 1, 2023, has the potential of ruining my family life, me being a married man and a father,” Omari lamented.
On October 6, 2023, a magistrate issued an injunction barring Ichung’wah from making or repeating statements deemed harmful to Omari’s reputation.
Ichung’wah, who is the National Assembly Majority Leader, appealed the decision through lawyer Cecil Miller, seeking to halt the proceedings and lift the gag order.
In his original suit, Omari argued that the MP portrayed him as immoral by calling him a Koinange Street lawyer.
Ichung’wah contested the injunction, calling it excessive, unjustified, and a breach of his constitutional right to free expression.
He submitted that the magistrate failed to cite specific defamatory statements, rendering the orders vague, overly broad, and unconstitutional.
Through Miller, he further argued that the lower court misapplied the legal threshold for granting an injunction in defamation matters.
He maintained that public figures like Omari should endure scrutiny and even harsh criticism, warning that the orders could turn courts into instruments for stifling political speech.
In response, Omari accused Ichung’wah of using political commentary as a cover to spread harmful falsehoods aimed at damaging his professional standing among clients, peers, and the public.
Omari told the court that Ichung’wah had launched a sustained campaign of malice that only judicial intervention could halt.
“While the Respondent admits that the Appellant has freedom of speech, the same should not be used to spread falsehoods meant to malign others. In the name of fair comment, constructive criticism or, as he puts it, ‘legitimate political commentary’. It is equally important for the Appellant to realise and acknowledge that the Respondent is guaranteed the same freedom, within the confines of the law,” he stated in his submissions.
Omari added that although freedom of expression is protected, it does not permit defamation and must be weighed against others’ rights to dignity and reputation.
He urged the High Court to reject the appeal, arguing that lifting the orders would expose him to further targeted attacks.
As the appeal progressed, Miller & Company Advocates, acting for Ichung’wah, filed a Certificate of Urgency seeking to suspend the lower court proceedings.
However, Justice Asenath Ongeri dismissed the appeal with costs, ruling that the magistrate had properly exercised judicial discretion in issuing the restraining orders.
She found that the lower court had applied the correct legal standards for defamation and injunctive relief, and that there was no legal or procedural error warranting High Court intervention.
Source: TUKO.co.ke
