The court issued an interim injunction in favour of Justice Lenaola in a defamation case.
The Kung’u Muigai defamatory remarks case will continue as the court prepares to hear the full suit.
Court issues interim injunction
Justice Nixon Sifuna delivered the ruling on December 18, 2025.
Justice Lenaola filed the case after accusing Muigai of publishing damaging allegations on social media and digital platforms.
The platforms included YouTube, TikTok, Facebook, X, and WhatsApp.
However, the court declined to order the removal of existing online content.
Instead, it barred Muigai from publishing further statements against the judge until the court determines the case.
Allegations against Justice Lenaola
Justice Lenaola accused Muigai of repeatedly making false claims about him.
Muigai allegedly claimed that Lenaola accepted a KSh1 million bribe while serving as a High Court judge.
The allegation relates to a past case involving Muigai and a company linked to him.
Lenaola denied the claims and argued that they damaged his reputation.
He told the court that the statements affected public confidence in the judiciary.
Evidence presented in court
Justice Lenaola presented evidence of online publications linked to Muigai.
The evidence included a TikTok video interview posted on an account with nearly 20,000 followers.
The video attracted thousands of views and interactions.
Lenaola argued that Muigai continued publishing the allegations even after receiving a demand letter and after the lawsuit began.
He described the publications as a continued attack on his reputation.
Muigai defends his statements
Muigai admitted making the statements.
However, he defended his actions by relying on the defences of truth and fair comment.
His lawyer, Senior Counsel Nelson Havi, opposed the injunction application.
The defence argued that courts should rarely restrict speech before completing defamation trials.
They maintained that Muigai had a right to defend his statements in court.
Court explains defamation injunction rules
Justice Sifuna said courts must exercise caution when issuing injunctions in defamation cases.
He noted that such cases involve a balance between freedom of expression and protection of reputation.
The judge applied the legal principles from the Giella v Cassman Brown case.
He also said defamation cases require additional exceptional circumstances before courts can restrict speech before trial.
Judge finds need to restrict further statements
The court found that Muigai’s repeated statements created a risk of further publications.
Justice Sifuna noted that Muigai continued making the remarks despite the pending case.
The judge said Muigai appeared unlikely to stop unless the court issued an order.
The court therefore granted a prohibitory injunction preventing further alleged defamatory remarks.
Court rejects removal of existing content
Justice Sifuna declined to order Muigai to delete existing online material.
The judge said a mandatory injunction requires a higher legal threshold.
He explained that Muigai had raised possible defences that the court must consider during trial.
Removing the content at this stage could prejudice Muigai if he eventually succeeds in his defence.
Case to proceed to full hearing
The court avoided making a final decision on whether Muigai defamed Justice Lenaola.
Justice Sifuna said every person enjoys a presumption of having a good reputation unless evidence proves otherwise.
The court will determine the truth of the allegations during the full hearing.
