VN v APL [2021] KEELRC 9 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan employment court refused to gag an ex-employee's tweets, ruling defamation claims need a separate suit, while barring both parties from posting about the case online.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the Court should grant restraint orders over social media publications pending determination of the employment suit
The application was dismissed; the Court found no basis for the grant of the orders, holding that the Applicant ought to have pursued review or appeal regarding the defamation issue decided by Radido J.
The Court observed deep tensions between the parties and noted the tweets contained a latent threat of violence, suggesting a possible defamation suit. However, since a similar motion had been declined by Radido J., who held the defamation allegations formed a fresh cause of action without nexus to the pending issues, the proper course was review or appeal. The Court instead issued informal directions against online postings about the case by either party, given the pending stay and appeal.
Whether the alleged defamatory tweets are severable from the pending employment cause
The Court indicated the Applicant seems to make out a good case for a defamation suit, treating the tweets as a distinct matter rather than part of the pending suit.
The Applicant argued the tweets were inextricably linked to the pending suit and invoked the Court's inherent jurisdiction to protect the integrity of its processes, relying on authorities on inherent jurisdiction. The Claimant countered that the alleged defamatory statements constitute a fresh, severable cause of action and that Radido J. had so held on a similar motion. The Court's observation that a defamation suit could lie, coupled with its direction that the Applicant should have sought review or appeal, aligns with the view that the tweets fall outside the pending cause.
Legal principles established
#- A party who seeks to restrain allegedly defamatory publications that constitute a fresh cause of action must pursue review or appeal on that issue rather than protective orders in the pending suit.
- Where a matter is under a stay pending appeal, neither party may post about the case online.
Court orders
#- 1.The application dated 9th November 2019 is dismissed (no basis found for grant of the orders sought)
- 2.Directions that there shall be no posting of the goings on of this case online by either party nor tweets in the name of discussing work experiences at the Respondent/Applicant
- 3.The orders of stay remain in force
- 4.Parties to revert at the end of February 2022 to inform the Court on progress of the appeal
- 5.The decision is to be redacted and not published on the kenyalaw website, or parties' names removed, on account of stated mental health issues
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Inherent jurisdiction of the Court and section 20(1) of the Employment and Labour Relations Court Act
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "VN v APL [2021] KEELRC 9 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2021). Not stated in judgment (redacted version for Law Report). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2021/9/eng@2021-12-20
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.