LSK Suffers Blow as High Court Dismisses Plea in Kiambu Politician’s Defamation Suit

The Law Society of Kenya has suffered a major blow after the High Court dismissed their plea to reject the defamation application filed against them by a Kiambu Politician.

Sitting at the Milimani High Court Civil Division, Justice Stella Mutuku stated that “the notice of Preliminary Objection dated March 25, 2025, is hereby struck out, with no order as to costs.” However, he gave an order directing the Plaintiff Stephen Mwangi Kimani to amend his plaint accordingly.

Kimani, a politician from Kiambu, Limuru Constituency had filed an application before the High Court seeking reliefs for general damages caused by LSK and Joseph Karanja Muchai for posting on Social media misleading information accompanied by his photographs.

In his affidavit, Kimani stated that his name was published on the group known as Kwambira/Kamirithu Notice Board with about 70,000 subscribers and that he has been masquerading as an advocate of the High Court information that was falsely intended to tarnish his name.

LSK is jointly charged with Joseph Karanja Muchai who is the administrator of the group, and the one who permitted the publication and posting of misleading information to the public whom he will seek their votes in the 2027 general elections.

“Muchai is a close associate of my political rival within Limuru Constituency where I have announced my intentions to vie in 2027, as the area Member of Parliament.” He stated in the affidavit.

He stated that the respondents went to Limuru police station on February 14, 2025, and reported that he was posing to be their member and as an advocate. The Officer Commanding the Station summoned the applicant and his name was cleared their report was found to be misleading and lacking basis and he was cleared and set free.

At the police station where he was interrogated, Kimani stated that the LSK members who were present took his photos without his consent and immediately upon leaving the police station they used his image and they have been posting and advertising him as a masquerader in their postings.

He indicated that the posts were shared and widely circulated to tarnish his name.

He further stated that, despite his request to them to pull down the misleading posts they have ceased and continued to add more.

When the application came up for hearing, LSK filed a preliminary objection urging the court to dismiss it since it failed to comply with the relevant provisions of the Oaths and Statutory Declarations Act.

They stated that “the Supporting Affidavit and the Verifying Affidavit of the Plaintiff were not sworn before a commissioner of oaths and neither were they witnessed by the same and this is in breach of sections 4,5 and 8 of the Oaths and Statutory Declarations Act.” They cited that the action by the plaintiff is illegal as per sections 7 and 11 of the Oaths and Statutory Declaration Act.

They submitted that these errors render his application incompetent and defective as it falls short of the content required under Order 51 Rule 4 of the Civil Procedure Rules,
“This is a mandatory requirement and without a duly filed complaint affidavit, the application cannot stand,” LSK stated.

Further, they challenged the plaintiff and approached the court by way of a plaint and not a constitutional petition, further, it is not a liquidated claim; hence the damages he is seeking can be awarded at the magistrate’s court and not the High Court.

They referred to his plaint as frivolous, vexatious, reprehensible, misconceived, misdirected, grossly misleading, a waste of precious judicial time, and a complete abuse of the court process, hence seeking the court to dismiss it.

Upon perusal, Justice Mutuku noted that that Kimani is challenging the alleged malicious and misleading posting of his photograph by LSK, on their social media platforms, coupled with their alleged advertisement purporting that he was at all  times masquerading as an advocate,

“The reliefs being sought therein are a declaration that the alleged postings of his images by the Defendants constitute an infringement of his constitutional right of association that is general damages and compensation for use of his image for advertising,” Justice Mutuku stated.

In determination, Justice Mutuku objected to the plea by LSK to dismiss the plaint, however, she directed Kimani to amend his plaint accordingly, illuminating the relevant cause of action and which Civil Division of the High Court it lies,

“The Plaintiff’s claim lies majorly under the Constitution and Human Rights.
Division, the Plaintiff is at liberty to take appropriate action and file his claim in the right division,” she stated.

The court directed Kimani to comply with the directions within 30 days.