Standard Limited & Deo Omondi v Anyasi Olusese [2014] KECA 448 (KLR)

INTHE COURT  OF APPEAL

AT NAIROBI

(CORAM:GITHINJI, OUKO & MURGOR, JJ.A.)

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 7 OF 2009

BETWEEN

1.  THE STANDARD LIMITED

2.  DEO OMONDI…………………………………………..APPELLANTS

AND

ANYASIOLUSESE…………….……………….……......RESPONDENT

(Appeal  from  the  Judgment and Decree  of High Court of Kenya at Nairobi  (Khamoni,  J.) dated  29th  September 2008)

in

H.C.C.C. No. 1869of 1998)

********************

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

This   appeal  is   in   respect  of  the   quantum  of  damages awarded to the  respondent,  ANYASI OLUSESE by the  High  Court in a suit for defamation in the form of libel, published by  the appellants, in  the   1st   appellant’s  newspaper, namely  the  East African  Standard  Newspapers-  Sunday Standard  Edition concerning the  respondent.

Briefly,  the  facts of the  case  are  that the   appellant  is  a limited liability company registered under the  Companies Act, Cap 486    and    engaged   in   the   business  of   printing,   publishing, distribution and  sale of the  East African Standard Newspaper. The respondent is a retired civil  servant having been  a State  Counsel in the  Attorney General’s Chambers, and at the time under consideration was an ex officio  member of the  board of the Music Copyright Society of Kenya,  (the Society)while the 2nd   plaintiff in the High Court was the  Society’s Administrator.

On 31st  August 1997  and  13th  September 1997  the  appellant wrote and  caused  to  be written and published in the East African Standard  Newspaper,  Sunday Edition,  false  and  malicious newspaper articles  in   respect  of  the   respondent  and   the   2nd plaintiff and their occupation in both  the  front page  and elsewhere in  the  newspaper, which words  were  reproduced in  Paragraph  5 and  6 of the Amended Plaint filed  on 22nd  November 2000  to the effect that the  respondent and  the  2nd   plaintiff claimed that the plain  and  ordinary meaning of the words  implied that they were dishonest officers, who  had  misappropriated the Society’s  funds for personal ends,  and were  incompetent and unfit to manage the affairs of the  Society, having neglected, frustrated and  defrauded members of  the  Society by  denying them their  rightful  dues.

Further,  that the  respondent and  the 2nd   plaintiff had  engaged in corrupt and  tribalistic practices in managing the Society. More particularly,  the  respondent  was   rude,   overbearing  and disrespectful of authority, and  had  dishonestly and  fraudulently mismanaged the Society for his  own  personal and selfish ends, and   was   under  suspicion  and   investigation  by   the  police  for various corrupt dealings, meaning that the  respondent had committed  criminal  offences punishable under the  Penal Code, Cap 63. The respondent and the 2nd   plaintiff stated that the words complained of had  greatly injured their credit, character, and reputation, and their offices or occupations had been  brought into hatred and ridicule.

The  appellant in  its  defence denied all  the allegations, and asserted that the words  were  fair comment made  in  good  faith and  without malice upon  a matter of public interest, in that they sought to  provide  information  to   the  general  public  of  the functions, conduct, and  performance of the respondents in  their employment as officials of the  Society being the body  responsible for the collection and  distribution of musical and  artistic products for  all   musicians  and   performing  artists within  Kenya   and   of foreign artists for sales within Kenya.  Furthermore, the  words complained of did  not bear  the  meanings attributed  to  them by the  respondent  and   the  2nd      plaintiff;  that the    words    were published  under  qualified   privilege   and    as   they  had    been requested for their version of the  story.

By  the time the  suit came  up  for hearing before the  High Court, the  2nd   plaintiff was  deceased and  as a consequence, the 2nd   plaintiff’s suit abated.

In  a  judgment  delivered on  23rd   March   2004, the learned judge (Khamoni, J), found for the respondent, and ordered that the appellants pay  the  respondent a sum  of Kshs.  3  million general and exemplary damages as well  as the costs  of the  suit.

Aggrieved by  the  decision of the  High  Court, the  appellants filed  this  appeal setting out nine grounds of appeal.When   the parties  came   before  us  on  7th   April   2014,  Mr.  Billing  learned counsel for the  appellant, relied on  his  submissions filed   on  1st April  2014. Counsel  informed the Court that only  grounds 7 and  8 of  the  Memorandum  of  Appeal  concerning  the   issue   of  the quantum  of damages would be  canvassed,  while   all  the   other grounds would  be  abandoned, as the   appellants had  admitted liability.

Regarding the  issue  of the  quantum of damages, counsel contended that,  the High  Court  had awarded  damages on  the higher side,  and  that this  Court had  powers to interfere with, and reduce the  amount awarded. Counsel  cited the cases  of MUTURIKIGANO VSJOSEPH NYAGAH  HCCC No. 509  of 2008  where the Court awarded Kshs. 1. 1 million,  KOIGI WAMWERE & ANOTHERVS THE STANDARD LIMITED & ANOTHER   HCCC No  716   of 2003,  THE STANDARD LIMITED VS G.N. KAGIA T/A KAGIA &COMPANY ADVOCATESCivil  Appeal No 115  of 2003where it was stated that damages to advocates should be  between Kshs.1. 5  million and   Kshs.  2 million, and  that the  court  should have regard for the status of the person defamed, the  nature and event of the damages, and  any  mitigating circumstances from the respondent.  The   respondent  was   obliged  in  law   to  have    a correction carried in  the  same  publication, for which he  did  not request. Counsel submitted that the respondent retired from the Civil  Service at age 55 years,  and his leaving employment was on account  of  his   retirement,  and   not  the   defaming  publication. Counsel  raised the   issue   of  interest,  and   submitted that  the appeal was  filed  in  2009  following the  delivery of the  judgment. Counsel   enjoined  us   to  compute  interest  from  the   dated  of judgment of this Court, and  not from the date  the  judgment was awarded  in  the High   Court,  as  the   interest accrued would  be punitive; that the  appeal had  come  up  severally, but that it had not been  heard due to no fault of the  appellants.

Learned counsel for the  respondent Mr. Ombete on his part, relied on his submissions filed  on 9th January 2014, and submitted that this  Court has  variously stated the principles in dealing with quantum of damages awarded by  the High  Court.  Counsel  cited BUTLER VS BUTLER [1984] KLR 225  for the proposition that the court should not interfere with the  exercise of discretion in  the discretion of the  trial judge, unless  the appellant can  show  that the  wrong  principles  were    applied, that  the   award  was   so excessive,  no   reasonable  court  would  have   ordered  such   an amount, and  the  court considered matters that it ought not to have  considered. Counsel  submitted that the learned Judge  took into  account all  necessary matters and  that, the  appellant failed to call evidence or tender evidence or to retract the offending publication. The  respondent  has  not shown   where the learned Judge  erred  in  arriving  at  the award of Kshs.  3  million in  the judgment; that the  award is adequate, and  there is no reason for this Court  to  interfere with the award of the  High  Court. Counsel pointed  out  that  the  cases   cited  by   learned  counsel  for  the appellant, only  deal  with situations where liability was not proved.

In   this    case   defamation  was   proved.  In   the    case   of   THE STANDARDVS KAGIA  (supra), this  Court  reduced the  award from Kshs.  6 million to  Kshs.  3 million, similar to  the High  Court award   in    the   instant   case,    despite   the   reference   to    the respondent’s retirement. In respect of interest, this issue  was  not raised in  the submissions, and  in  any  event interest on  general damages commences from the  time the  suit is filed. From  the bar, counsel informed the  Court that an amount of Kshs. 1 million was paid  to the respondent in January 2011.

Having considered the  pleadings, the  evidence, judgment of the High  Court and the  respective submissions of learned counsel, we  find  that the  issue  for consideration is  whether to interfere with the  award for general damages for reasons the learned Judge misdirected himself in  awarding an inordinately high  amount to the respondent.

In  awarding damages the  trial court took  into  account the respondent’s standing in the legal profession, as a State  Counsel in  the  Attorney General’s  Office,   the  extent and  gravity of the libel, factors tending to  mitigate damage and  factors tending to aggravate the  damages. In so doing, the learned judge considered J.P. MACHARIA VS THE STANDARD LIMITED HCCC No 612  of 1996  Nairobi where the  advocate of many years   standing was awarded Kshs.  1,250,000/- in  general damages for an  allegation that he  was  involved in  a physical fight with a client outside the court building,  JOHN MACHIRAVS WANGECHI MWANGI &NATION NEWSPAPERSLIMITED HCCC No 1709  of 1996  Nairobi where an  advocate was  awarded Kshs.  8,000,000/- as  damages for a defamatory report  alleging the  stealing of client’  money, FRED OJIAMBO VS THE STANDARD LIMITED  HCCC No. 1996  of 1997  where the  plaintiff, a Senior  Counsel  was awarded general damages of Kshs 1,000,000/- for a defamatory publication that he was  being used  corruptly to derail the Constitution and   JAREDOMONDE KISERA VSTHE STANDARD LIMITED HCCC No. 160 of 2001,  where  the  plaintiff, an   advocate  of  considerable reputation   and    standing was awarded  Kshs. 800,000/-   for allegations of corruption.

As we  consider the  issue  of quantum of damages, we  must remind ourselves that the  principles governing our  mandate are set out in the  case of,  Rock vs Fairrie [1941] 1 AER 297  which stated thus,

“…the latitudein  awarding damages in  an action for  libel   is  very   wide, and  that one thing  that  a  court  of  appeal  must  avoid doing  is to  substitute its  own  opinion as to what  it  would have awarded for   the   sum which  has  been awarded by  the Judge below…”

And in  Butt vs Kiyan (1981) KLR 349  this  Court stated the principle as,

An appellate court will  not disturb an award for  damages unless  it is inordinately high  or low as to represent an entirely erroneous estimate. It must be  shown  that the  Judge proceeded on wrong principles or that he misapprehended  the   evidence  in  some material respect and  so arrived at a  figure which  was either inordinately high  or low”.

To  begin  with,  in   order  to  arrive  at  the   amount  to  be awarded, the  learned Judge considered the respondent’s standing in   the   legal   profession,  as   a  State  Counsel   in   the   Attorney General’s Office. In  so  doing,  the  learned  Judge  analysed  a number of cases  where varying amounts were   awarded to advocates.

When  we  consider the  more  recent awards for reputational injury to  members of the  legal  profession, it  is  clear   that the standing of the  individual within the profession and  the  society as a whole  must be taken into  consideration.

In  the  case  of JOHNSON EVANS GICHERU VS ANDREW MORTON& ANOTHERCivil   Appeal No.  314 of 2000this Court awarded a sum  of Kshs 6,000,000/- taking into  account the plaintiff’s standing as the country’s Chief Justice at the  time.

In  the case of  KAGIA   T/A  KAGIA   &   COMPANYADVOCATESCivil  Appeal No 115  of 2003this Court reduced the sum  awarded by the  trial court from Kshs 5,000,000/- to Kshs.3,000,000/- and  also   awarded  exemplary   damages  of  Kshs 1,000,000/- .Also  taken into account was  the effect of the  libel  in diminishing the  firm’s clientele, and  ability to recruit legal assistants.

In    the    case    of     KENYA  TEA DEVELOPMENT AGENCYLIMITED VS BENSON ONDIMU MASESE T/A B.O. MASESE &COMPANY ADVOCATESCivil  Appeal No 95  of 2006, this  Court awarded a sum of Kshs 1,500,000/- and in so doing took  into consideration the   length of time  the respondent   had  been   in practice  and   the   extent  of  the   circulation  of  the   defamatory statement which in the  Court’s view  was not to “the whole  world” but   limited   to    two   letters   addressed  to   the    Complaints Commission  and   to  the  Minister for  Justice  and   Constitutional Affairs.

In the more  recent case of  NATION NEWSPAPERSLIMITEDVS DANIEL MUSINGAT/A      MUSINGA&  COMPANYADVOCATES Civil Appeal No 120 of 2008 this  Court  reduced the quantum from  the   amount of  Kshs.  10,000,000/-  to  Kshs. 4,000,000/- and stated thus:-

“We note thatChief  Justice Gicheru was awarded    a     composite    sum     of    Kshs. 6,000,000/-for compensation in the above cited case. We  concur  with the observation made inTHE STANDARD LIMITED VS G. N. KAGIA T/A  KAGIA  &  COMPANY ADVOCATES, that  the subject  effect  of  defamation   on   a   Chief Justice  cannot be  reasonably equated to  an advocate of whatever standing in the profession. It  is  appreciated that  the   trialjudgedid   not  have  the  benefit   of  the Gicheru judgment, as she  delivered her judgment before the Gicheru judgment. However the trial Judge  misdirected herself by  using  the awards of Nicholas Biwott and Charles Kariuki in  the  afore cited cases  for comparison  purposes.  We are  of the  view that if the  Judge had  the benefit of that judgment,  and    all   the   authorities  which were cited, therein in  regard to  quantum, her  award would not have been the same.”

Having regard to  the  litany of cases  that the  learned Judge considered, and  taking into  consideration the  more  recent awards to members of the  legal   profession, we  consider that  the trial Judge  was right in  awarding the   sum   of Kshs.3  million to  the respondent given the circumstances of the  case. It is noteworthy that in  making the award, the  learned Judge  bore  in  mind this Court’s  aversion for excessive awards for damages given by  the courts in the  past  for damages for loss of reputation.

With  regard to the extent and gravity of the libel, the learned Judge took  into consideration the  nature of the  allegation, that the respondent   had    stolen money   and    even  committed   other additional criminal offences, such  that, the  crime that the respondent  was  alleged  to  have  committed  would have   been punishable by  prison for a term of not less than  three years. The learned judge also  took  into  account that the  appellant failed to apologise and/or withdraw the offending articles so as to mitigate against the  damages. We do not agree  with Mr. Billing that these were extraneous matters. To the contrary, we  consider that the learned judge correctly applied these principles and in so doing arrived at a suitable award.

From  the above, we find  the amount awarded was not based on  wrong principles,  and  we  consider it to be  in  tandem with amounts awarded in other analogous suits,  and,  as such  we  find that we  have no  reason to  interfere with the award of the  trial court.

With  respect to  interest, it is  noted that the  issue  was  no raised in the Memorandum of Appeal dated 15th  January  2009  or in the  submissions, and  having regard to  rule  104  of this  Court’s rules we have  no jurisdiction to consider this  issue.  But be that as it may,  it is trite that costs  follow the event, as does  interest, and therefore the  appellant must be held  liable for the  costs  as well  as interest accruing thereto from the date  of the judgment of the  suit at court rates.  However, as the respondent has  admitted being paid   Ksh. One    million  in    January,    2011,   interest     should    be calculated on the  balance of the  award by the  High Court.

Accordingly, we see no reason to interfere with the judgment of the High Court  with the result that the appeal fails  and  is dismissed with costs  to the respondent.

Datedand  delivered at Nairobi this  18th day  of JULY,2014.

E. M.GITHINJI

………………………................

JUDGE OF APPEAL

W.OUKO

.............................

JUDGE OF APPEAL

A.K.MURGOR

…............................

JUDGE OF APPEAL

I certify that this  is a true copy  of the  original

DEPUTY REGISTRAR