The High Court has issued temporary orders restraining a man from publishing or sharing what it described as potentially defamatory content about a Nairobi-based pastor and his church on social media. Justice Nixon Sifuna granted the orders after partially allowing an application filed by Pastor Richard Stanley Takim in a defamation case against Luke Chianga Chianga.
Allegations of Defamation on Social Media
In court documents, Pastor Takim accused the respondent of posting statements on platforms including Instagram, Facebook, X (formerly Twitter), and Telegram, alleging that the pastor and his church were involved in cult-like activities and other alleged misconduct. The pastor told the court that the claims were false, malicious, and harmful, arguing that they were designed to tarnish his reputation and undermine his credibility both personally and in his religious ministry.
Court Notes Lack of Defence
Justice Sifuna noted that the defendant had failed to file a defence in response to the claims, a factor the court took into consideration when evaluating the application. In his ruling, the judge stated that the content cited in the pleadings was capable of being defamatory, as it could lower the plaintiff’s standing in the eyes of right-thinking members of society. However, he emphasized that a final determination on whether the statements were defamatory would only be made during the full trial.
Injunction Granted, But Posts to Remain Online
The court found that the application met the legal threshold required for the issuance of an interlocutory injunction. Justice Sifuna was particularly persuaded by the fact that the material had been published across several social media platforms at the same time, increasing its reach and the risk of repeated circulation. As a result, the court restrained the defendant, his agents, or anyone acting on his behalf from publishing or republishing similar content about the pastor and his church until the case is heard and determined. However, the judge declined to issue a mandatory order compelling the removal of the existing posts. He ruled that the material should remain accessible for now, as it constitutes key evidence that will be relied upon during the trial.
