The High Court in Nairobi has cautioned Kileleshwa MCA Robert Alai and veteran broadcaster Fred Machoka against discussing their ongoing defamation dispute on social media, saying public commentary could interfere with the administration of justice.
Justice Stella Mutuku issued the warning on Monday during proceedings in a case in which Machoka has sued Alai for defamation. The judge expressed concern over comments and opinions being shared online while the matter remains active before the court.
"The concern I am raising here is simple: the record of the court is open to scrutiny. What I am concerned about is that I am not on social media and I am not going to be there for the sake of this case," Justice Mutuku said.
She urged all parties to allow the court process to run its course without seeking to litigate the matter through social media platforms.
"Each of you prosecuted your case and defended it. Why don't we let the process take its course to conclusion?" the judge said.
Justice Mutuku directed the parties to refrain from making further comments about the dispute until the court delivers its judgment.
"Let's stop commenting about the case and wait. The court will finalise it, and then we can report that a decision has been made," she stated.
The judge also warned the advocates representing both sides. She specifically cautioned lawyer Danstan Omari, who represents Machoka, and advocate Oonge, acting for Alai, to ensure neither they nor individuals associated with their clients continue discussing the matter online.
"Mine is to caution Mr Omari and anybody related to the firm and the client who is the plaintiff, Mr Oonge and whoever is related to the defendant, to ensure that this is not repeated on social media," Justice Mutuku ruled.
The issue arose after concerns were raised over online discussions and the circulation of video clips related to court proceedings.
Addressing the court, Machoka said he had viewed YouTube clips showing portions of the proceedings but argued that subsequent commentary had placed him in a difficult position.
"Your Honour, the only thing I saw was a YouTube video clip of what transpired in court, but everything else that has happened after that is putting me in a very difficult position. I have no explanation; just help me out, please," Machoka told the court.
Background to the dispute
The defamation case stems from a public fallout between the veteran broadcaster and the outspoken Nairobi politician that has played out both in court and on social media.
Machoka, one of Kenya's most recognizable radio personalities with a broadcasting career spanning decades, moved to court after alleging that statements made by Alai damaged his reputation and exposed him to public ridicule.
The dispute attracted widespread public attention because both men command significant audiences. Machoka is a household name in Kenya's media industry, while Alai is known for his active social media presence and frequent commentary on political and public affairs.
Court documents indicate that Machoka is seeking damages and other remedies, arguing that the statements in question were defamatory and injured his standing in the eyes of the public.
Alai has denied wrongdoing and defended his actions, setting the stage for a legal battle that has generated considerable public interest.
The case has also highlighted the growing intersection between social media and the justice system, with courts increasingly confronting disputes that originate online and are amplified through digital platforms.
Legal experts note that while litigants have a right to freedom of expression, courts often discourage public commentary on active cases to safeguard the integrity of proceedings and ensure that disputes are determined solely on the basis of evidence presented before the court.
Justice Mutuku's warning reflects broader judicial concerns about trial by social media, where public opinion can sometimes overshadow legal arguments and evidence.
The case is expected to proceed to its conclusion before the court delivers its final determination on the defamation claims.
