The woman had sought Sh20 million in damages arguing that the violation had caused serious and lasting harm.It started with a few private photographs, but their journey from one person’s possession to social media would eventually end in a High Court battle and a Sh2.5 million damages award for a married woman who said the exposure left her humiliated, distressed and separated from her husband.
The High Court judgment delivered in November 2025 awarded the woman after finding that the man was responsible for, or had facilitated, the circulation of her nude photographs without her consent.
Justice Rhoda Rutto of the High Court in Machakos ruled on November 3, 2025, that the taking and circulation of the intimate photographs violated the woman’s constitutional rights to dignity and privacy.
The court awarded her Sh2 million in general damages and Sh500,000 in exemplary damages, while also restraining the man and anyone acting on his behalf from further publishing, sharing or distributing the photographs.
The case centred on allegations that the man, who knew the woman and had met her several times, took the photographs without her consent and that they were later circulated on WhatsApp and Facebook.
The complainant told the court that she knew the man and had met him on several occasions, both privately and in public.
She alleged that he took nude photographs of her without her consent and later shared them on WhatsApp and Facebook.
She said she only learnt that the photographs were circulating after receiving calls and screenshots from people who had seen them online.
According to her account, the circulation subjected her to ridicule and mockery from family, friends and neighbours.
She said the humiliation became so severe that she deactivated her Facebook and WhatsApp accounts.
She further told the court that she had suffered serious psychological and mental distress, sought medical treatment and counselling, and had fallen into depression.
The woman also claimed that the photographs were sent to her husband, resulting in the breakdown of their marriage.
She said she subsequently moved to her parents’ home with her two children.
In her petition, she argued that the conduct violated Article 28 of the Constitution, which protects the inherent dignity of every person, and Article 31, which guarantees the right to privacy.
The man denied circulating the photographs and challenged the evidence linking him to the social-media accounts through which they were disseminated.
In a replying affidavit sworn on May 15, 2023, he said the photographs had not been linked to his WhatsApp or Facebook accounts and that he first learnt they were circulating after his mother contacted him about them on WhatsApp on March 23, 2023.
He also relied on his hospitalisation as part of his defence, telling the court that he had been admitted to hospital between March 15 and 17, 2023 because of illness.
He argued that the hospital stay made it impossible for him to have circulated the photographs during that period.
The man also pointed out that the photographs showed both him and the woman, arguing that if he had been the person who deliberately shared them, he would have edited himself out to avoid the embarrassment.
He maintained that he too had suffered public ridicule and embarrassment and denied violating the woman’s constitutional rights.
The woman disputed his explanation, arguing that he had not denied taking the photographs and that the images showed he was the person who captured them.
She further argued that because he had possession and control of the photographs, he bore responsibility for explaining how they had subsequently found their way onto WhatsApp and Facebook.
The woman also pointed to the man’s admission that he had received the photographs from his mother, who had in turn received them from his father.
She argued that neither the man nor his father had explained how the images came into the father’s possession.
The court considered the competing accounts and identified, among the issues for determination, whether the woman had proved on a balance of probabilities that the man took and/or circulated the photographs.
The man had also challenged the admissibility of the electronic evidence presented by the woman, arguing that the screenshots did not meet the requirements of Section 106B of the Evidence Act.
The court noted that the screenshots and photographs produced by the woman had not been accompanied by a certificate under Section 106B(4).
However, she had explained that she obtained screenshots from her phone and from messages forwarded to her by friends and relatives who had seen the photographs online.
Justice Rutto found the evidence admissible, noting that the man did not dispute that the photographs depicted him and the woman or that he had possessed the images.
The judge also considered his hospitalisation defence but found that the medical records did not demonstrate that he had been incapacitated or unable to use his phone or access social-media platforms while in hospital.
“Hospitalization, without evidence of incapacitation or unavailability of devices, does not conclusively negate the possibility of digital activity,” the judge held.
The court, however, acknowledged a significant gap in the woman’s evidence: she had not produced direct evidence connecting the man’s specific WhatsApp or Facebook account to the dissemination of the photographs.
The screenshots showed that the photographs had been circulated from an account or page identified as “Leaked Videos in Kenya”.
The judge found that this established online circulation but did not, on its own, prove that the man was the source of the uploads or forwards.
The court nevertheless considered the wider circumstances surrounding the photographs, including the man’s possession of them and his failure to provide an explanation sufficient to rebut the possibility that he had facilitated their dissemination.
“While the motive for taking such intimate photos remains unknown, it is highly improbable that such intimate material would have found its way into public circulation without the Respondent’s knowledge or participation, whether direct or indirect,” Justice Rutto said.
The court ultimately found that the woman had established, on a balance of probabilities, that the man was responsible for or had facilitated the circulation of the photographs, whether directly, indirectly or recklessly.
The judge held that the conduct violated her rights to dignity and privacy under Articles 28 and 31 of the Constitution.
In assessing damages, the woman had sought Sh20 million, arguing that the violation had caused serious and lasting harm.
The man, on the other hand, submitted that Sh100,000 would be adequate compensation if the court found fault against him.
The court rejected both figures, finding the woman’s demand excessive while holding that the proposed Sh100,000 would not adequately reflect the gravity of the violation.
Justice Rutto said constitutional damages serve not only to compensate an aggrieved person but also to vindicate violated rights and deter future violations.
“The humiliation, psychological trauma, and the irreparable nature of digital dissemination of intimate images justify a substantial, though not excessive, award,” the judge said.
The court awarded Sh2 million as general damages for the violation of the woman’s rights to dignity and privacy, and a further Sh500,000 as exemplary damages for what it described as the man’s reckless disregard of those rights.
The award included costs and interest.
The woman had additionally sought an order compelling the man to issue a public apology in a newspaper of national circulation, but the final orders issued by the court did not grant that relief.
The court, however, issued an order restraining the man and anyone acting on his behalf from further publishing, sharing or distributing the photographs.
