By GPC Reporter
The High Court in Kisii has temporarily barred Kisii Senator Richard Onyonka from repeating in public allegations contained in a disputed press statement concerning Governor Paul Simba Arati.
Justice Nixon Sifuna issued the interlocutory injunction on Tuesday, restraining Onyonka from making statements about Arati in public meetings, rallies, media briefings, press statements and other public platforms, including social media, pending the hearing and determination of the defamation suit.
Also Read
The court, however, declined Arati’s request for a mandatory injunction compelling Onyonka to delete or remove the disputed statement from social media and other platforms.
The case stems from a press statement dated June 9, 2025, in which Onyonka accused Arati of hiring “goons and criminals” to attack a Senate team that had visited Kisii County to audit and oversee county books and spending.
In the statement, Onyonka said: “I strongly condemn the attack by goons and criminals who were hired by Sima Arati on the Senate Team during the Senate visit to Kisii County to audit and oversee the county’s books and spending.”
He further accused the governor of organising gangs to disrupt the Senate’s oversight exercise and said the Senate would continue scrutinising county expenditure.
Arati sued Onyonka, arguing that the statement was defamatory and damaged his reputation by portraying him as a person who threatens people, associates with criminal gangs, uses violence and presides over waste and violations of procurement laws.
The governor sought a permanent injunction against further publication of allegedly defamatory statements, an unconditional written apology, general damages, punitive or exemplary damages, costs and interest.
At the interlocutory stage, he also sought temporary orders stopping Onyonka from making further statements and a mandatory order requiring the removal of allegedly defamatory posts, videos and articles from WhatsApp, Facebook and other platforms.
Onyonka admitted issuing the press statement but denied that it had been published on social media. He argued that the statement was made in the exercise of his constitutional Senate oversight role over national revenue allocated to county governments.
He also argued that the application sought to improperly restrict lawful discussion of matters of public interest and governance.
However, the judge noted that Onyonka had not filed a substantive defence nearly four months after the suit was instituted. The court observed that while his replying affidavit opposed the application, the suit itself remained unopposed in the absence of a defence.
Justice Sifuna said the court was not required at the interlocutory stage to determine whether Arati had ultimately been defamed. That question, he said, would be decided after the full hearing, when both sides had presented their evidence.
The judge nevertheless found that the words used in the disputed statement were, on their face, defamatory.
“From the ordinary meaning of the words and phrases used in it and without any context, the impugned Press Statement is ex facie defamatory,” the judge ruled.
He said the statement was likely to be interpreted as portraying Arati as a governor who was “incompetent, lack integrity, and thrives on violence, goons, and criminality”.
The court also singled out another passage in which Onyonka referred to “the most incompetent leadership” and attributed violence in Kisii County to a lack of basic education.
Justice Sifuna said the wording was harsh, bullying and insensitive, adding that whether the statement actually defamed Arati would be determined at the full hearing.
The court further held that the injunction would not interfere with Onyonka’s parliamentary oversight functions. The order applies to statements made to the general public and in public spaces, but not statements made in Parliament or parliamentary committees while exercising his oversight role.
On Arati’s request for removal of the disputed material, the judge declined to issue a mandatory injunction, saying the material could form part of the evidence at trial and that its permanent removal at this stage would effectively amount to deleting evidence.
The application was therefore allowed in part, with the interlocutory prohibition granted but the mandatory injunction declined.
The court ordered each party to bear their own costs.
