Court restrains Uhuru cousin from defaming Justice Lenaola
Courts
By
Kamau Muthoni
| Dec 21, 2025
The High Court in Nairobi has barred former President Uhuru Kenyatta’s cousin, Kungu Muigai, from allegedly defaming Supreme Court judge Isaac Lenaola.
Justice Nixon Sifuna, in his orders issued yesterday, restrained Kungu from publishing or uttering any defamatory statement concerning or against the judge until the case is heard and determined.
Justice Sifuna observed that Kungu had admitted sustaining his utterances against the judge and had vowed to continue, arguing that he believed the statements were true and justified.
The judge said the only solution was to tilt the scales of justice to a level playing ground, where Kungu could continue expressing himself but without attacking Justice Lenaola.
READ MORE
Boon for exporters as Kenya inches closer to China tariff deal
Closing Kenya's construction skills gap for future-ready workforce
CEOs see Trump tariffs, high taxes hurting growth in 2026
Christmas comes early for Naivas Kikwetu winners
Giant society turns to land lease to grow revenues
Flower growers halt expansion projects over tax refund delay
GDP to grow by 5.3pc this year, say Parliament think tank
Infrastructure fund will be well managed: Mbadi
Engineers told to uphold integrity amid graft concerns
Regional business lobby urges EAC countries to address emerging non-tariff barriers
He further noted that although Kungu’s lawyer, Nelson Havi, had alleged that Lenaola had no reputation to defend, the judge was presumed to have a good reputation until proved otherwise.
“This application is hereby allowed only partially, and in terms of prayer (5), that pending the hearing and final determination of this suit, a temporary injunction is hereby issued restraining the respondent, whether by himself, his servants, his agents, anyone acting on his behalf, and/or any of them, either individually or jointly, from making the same or similar statements and utterances against the plaintiff, in any media and in any manner whatsoever and howsoever,” ruled Justice Sifuna.
However, he declined to compel Kungu to permanently delete the comments, saying it was premature as the case had not been heard and determined.
Justice Sifuna was of the view that in cases where truth and fair comment are raised as defences, judges and magistrates should be slow to issue mandatory orders for the pulling down or deletion of contested content.
“Such a drastic action may result in prejudice to the defendant, for instance if the court later finds that there was no defamation, or if the defence of truth or justification and fair comment (or honest opinion) ultimately succeeds at trial. For that reason, the plaintiff’s plea for a mandatory injunction (prayer 4) is hereby politely declined. In any case, the mandatory injunction is one of the prayers in the suit itself,” said Justice Sifuna.
In the case, the senior judge noted that Kungu had repeatedly circulated false information meant to injure his reputation.
Justice Lenaola said the claims by Uhuru’s cousin had gained traction online and portrayed him as a person without legal or moral standing.
“Despite receiving a demand notice to retract the defamatory publication and cease making any further defamatory statements against the applicant, the respondent did not halt his actions. On September 25, 2025, he did another video interview reiterating allegations of the involvement of the applicant, as well as other Justices of the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court of Kenya, in corruption dealings while handling suits involving his properties,” stated Lenaola’s lawyer, Herman Omiti.
According to the judge, Kungu dared him to file a defamation case, saying he was not ready to honour the demand.
He said there was a likelihood that Kungu would continue spreading defamatory statements against him if the court did not intervene. According to him, Kungu’s comments related to a case he presided over many years ago when he was a High Court judge, which Kungu and his company lost.
Omiti said Lenaola holds a critical position in the Judiciary, which relies heavily on goodwill and public trust. According to him, the statements circulating were unsubstantiated and meant to injure the judge’s reputation.
In response, Kungu admitted making the statements, claiming they were based on truth and fair comment.