A Nairobi court has dismissed a lawsuit filed against British Airways PLC and International Airlines Group following an eight-year criminal prosecution.
Racecourse Chimoli Luvonga had sued the airlines following the termination of a criminal case against her on August 17, 2018, demanding financial compensation.
“The plaintiff contends that the criminal proceedings arose from a complaint concerning money allegedly lost in transit and associated with British Airways PLC,” the court heard.
In her amended plaint dated November 4, 2025, Luvonga alleges that Alexander Ilangoswa made the complaint that led to the criminal proceedings on behalf of British Airways. He is also referred to in some documents as Alexander Langoswa.
She contends that he was connected to both International Airlines Group and British Airways at the material time, and that the complaint was made even though there was no proper evidential basis for implicating her in the alleged offence.
Luvonga stated that police arrested her at her rural home in Kakamega and brought her to Nairobi, causing severe physical and psychological distress, reputational damage, and compounded grief following the death of her son during the trial.
She sought to have the defendants liable for the alleged wrongs.
“The plaintiff sought general, aggravated and exemplary damages, costs and interest arising from the alleged false detention, malicious prosecution and injury to her reputation,” the court heard.
In written submissions, she asked the court to award Sh10 million in general damages, Sh5 million in aggravated damages and Sh5 million in exemplary damages, together with costs and interest.
International Airlines Group, the first defendant, argued in written submissions dated October 1, that the case against it was not properly before the court.
It said the plaintiff had not obtained the permission required under Order 5 of the Civil Procedure Rules to serve a defendant outside Kenya, and that neither email service nor service through British Airways PLC amounted to valid service on it.
British Airways (the fifth defendant) argued that the claims against it were brought outside the applicable statutory limitation periods and that subsequent amendments or the joinder of parties could not revive a time-barred cause of action.
On the merits, the airlines argued that Luvonga failed to establish that they procured or maliciously instituted the criminal prosecution, published actionable defamatory material, or caused the alleged losses.
While admitting that Ilangoswa, the sixth defendant, was its employee at the material time, the airline denied that the employment relationship, without more, established liability for the acts complained of.
It maintained that it had no authority to arrest or detain Luvonga and did not control the independent functions of the police or prosecuting authorities.
BA contended that any report made concerning the incident was made in good faith and that the police independently investigated the matter and took the subsequent action.
The defendants argued that Luvonga had not established that they procured or maliciously instituted the prosecution, published defamatory material, or caused the injuries and losses alleged.
Principal Magistrate Linda Mumassabba ruled that an acquittal alone does not automatically prove malicious prosecution or unlawful detention.
"The plaintiff has not established a sufficient legal and evidential basis for holding the fifth defendant liable for malicious prosecution, unlawful arrest or detention, defamation or the damages claimed against it."
The court dismissed the claims against British Airways with costs and struck out the suit against International Airlines Group due to procedural service defects.
