NAIROBI, Kenya — The High Court has barred a man from publishing or republishing alleged defamatory claims against a Nairobi-based pastor and his church on social media, pending the hearing and determination of a defamation suit.
Justice Prof. (Dr.) Nixon Sifuna issued the orders after partially allowing an application filed by Pastor Richard Stanley Takim, who sued Luke Chianga Chianga over online posts accusing him and his church of cultism and other alleged vices.
Pastor Takim told the court that the defendant had published the claims on multiple platforms — including Instagram, Facebook, X (formerly Twitter) and Telegram — arguing that the statements were false, malicious and intended to harm his reputation, integrity and professional standing.
In his ruling, Justice Sifuna noted that the defendant had failed to file a defence in response to the suit.
The judge found that the material 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 stressed that a final determination on whether the statements were indeed defamatory would only be made after a full trial.
“The content complained of is potentially defamatory,” Justice Sifuna ruled, adding that the court was satisfied the legal threshold for granting an interlocutory injunction had been met.
The judge was particularly persuaded by the manner in which the content was published, noting that it appeared simultaneously across several social media platforms, significantly increasing its reach and the risk of repeat publication.
“As if to ensure it reaches a wide base of society,” Justice Sifuna observed, saying the wide circulation amplified the potential damage to the pastor’s reputation.
Consequently, the court restrained the defendant, his agents or anyone acting on his behalf from publishing or republishing similar material about Pastor Takim until the case is heard and determined.
However, the court declined to issue a mandatory order compelling the removal of the existing posts.
Justice Sifuna ruled that the content should remain preserved, as it constitutes evidence that will be required during the trial.
