The Court of Appeal has overturned a High Court decision that found the Nation Media Group liable for defamation in a 2006 publication linking a businessman to a criminal gang.

Cup pressure peaks as Shabana host Kenya Police in blockbuster quarter-final Football

Upper Hill coach Walgwe unperturbed despite drawing giants in Prescott Cup group phase Rugby

The court ruled that the article was substantially true and said the public had a right to know about the security incident20 years ago.

In a unanimous judgment, appellate judges Steven Kairu and Aggrey Muchelule set aside the Sh3 million award granted to David Simon, the respondent. He had sued over articles published in Taifa Jumapili and the Daily Nation.

The judges found that the High Court had made a mistake by failing to recognise that the publications accurately reported the circumstances of the respondent’s arrest following a shootout between police and armed criminals in Nairobi’s central business district.

The dispute arose from articles published in June 2006, accompanied by a photograph of the respondent being escorted by police.

The caption described him as a suspect from a dangerous gang arrested after a major operation along Accra Road, in which a pistol and ammunition were recovered.

The High Court had ruled in 2018 that the publications were defamatory and had injured Simon’s reputation and business interests.

In allowing the petition, the Court of Appeal emphasised the respondent’s own testimony had confirmed the core facts.

During the trial, the respondent acknowledged being arrested by police following a shootout.

“Police had conducted an operation before arresting me,” Simon told the court. “I was arrested as a suspect, but I was later released when the police discovered I was innocent. At the time of arrest, there was an area gang who had terrorised residents.”

The appellate court found the appellant had no obligation to call further evidence, saying respondent’s admission validated the newspaper’s account.

The judges held that minor inaccuracies, such as an erroneous date, did not defeat the defence of justification, as the substance of the reporting remained accurate.

The court further underscored the importance of reporting matters of public concern.

“The story carried out by the appellant was not false. It was an accurate story. The public was entitled to know about it.

“What was important was for the appellant, as a responsible newspaper, to make sure that the story they carried was substantially accurate and done in good faith, with the sole intention of informing the public,”the court said.

The judges concluded that the respondent had failed to establish negligence or malice by the media house.

“We find that on this occasion the appellant discharged its duty responsibly.”

This concludes a lengthy legal battle that originated from the respondent’s arrest on May 23, 2006.

The respondent had previously obtained a favourable judgment in a separate petition against the police over the same events.

The Court of Appeal clarified that the fact of the arrest itself remained true and the publication of that fact did not constitute defamation.