Kratos wrote:Quote:The law offers
remedies to a person
aggrieved by reputational injury from
defamat
ory publications.
In this
regard, t
he first and most important
thing to note is that a suit for
defamation
in Kenya
must be brought
w
ithin 12 months from the date on
which the defamatory
statement(s)
is
made
.
Also not that the case of the
aggrieved party is strengthened where
a person aggrieved by defamatory
statements
prior to filing an action in
court
require
s
the maker
of the
statement
complained of to retract the
statement
and
apologise
.
Such
retraction
a
n
d
or apology has to be
made with
the same prominence that
the statement complained of was
made.
The defence
s available where one is
accused of defamation
are justification,
fair comment, public interest, and
privilege/immunity.
For instance, l
aw
makers h
ave the immunity from
prosecution for statements made in the
course of their legislative duties
since
they have to execute their mandate
without fear of prosecution.
On the
other hand,
publishers of statements
that
may
be
perceived
to
be
defamatory
have
a
defence
if
publication was
due to public intere
st
or formed part of fair comment
which
is also closely related to justification
.
Fair comment has to be made in
utmost good faith and based on
substantiated facts.
A
person relying
on the aforesaid grounds as defence
for defamation has to prove the
justification,
good
faith
or
fair
comment
.
Am really trying to understand BM's end game here. I thought the onus is upon him to prove that indeed the DP was involved in any action that led to the demise of Juma. How do stories about being a "hustler" and the negative connotation that goes with that name among many other sideshows help his defence?
How does a counter suit that is not even related come into play?
Nope
The Plaintiff is William Samoei Ruto
The Defendant is Boniface Mwangi
The Plaintiff first proves his case and the Defendant tenders a defence.
A Counterclaim is what we call a suit within a suit.
After WSR calls his witnesses (and mind you he MUST testify) he will rest his case
BM will then call witnesses in his defence and simultaneously attempt to prove his case against WSR.The Court can either;Find for WSR
Dismiss the case against BM and find for BM or;
Dismiss both claims.
possunt quia posse videntur