By Habil Onyango
The Oyugis Magistrates’ Court has awarded Ksh1 million to Richard Ochieng Bonyo, a plaintiff in a defamation case against the County Government of Homa Bay.
Bonyo had initially requested general damages in the range of Ksh8 million to Ksh10 million.
He also sued the Homa Bay County Secretary, who serves as the Head of Public Service, as well as the Chief Executive Officer of the Homa Bay County Public Service Board, naming them as the second and third defendants, respectively.
The ruling was issued by Resident Magistrate Hon. Cynthia Chepkoech in a judgment dated July 24, 2026, and was delivered at Oyugis.
In his court complaint dated June 7, 2024, the plaintiff sought damages, injunctive relief, and an apology from the defendants for defamation.
According to court documents, the plaintiff asserted that the suit arose from a letter dated May 23, 2024, authored by the Acting Chief Executive Officer/Secretary of the Homa Bay County Government. The letter was addressed to the County Secretary and Head of Public Service, and was sent to all authorised officers, including all Chief Officers and the Director of Human Resource Management and Development.
The letter was titled “Implementation of Price Waterhouse Coopers (PwC) Report Recommendations.” PwC had been contracted by the Homa Bay County Government to conduct a major payroll and personnel census audit.
The plaintiff contended that the letter contained false and malicious allegations against him, specifically labelling him as a “ghost worker,” defined as “staff who are on the payroll but do not seem to belong to any department nor know any of their colleagues.” He argued that these allegations were not only untrue but also intended to harm his reputation in the eyes of the public and relevant authorities. This was corroborated by the testimonies of the plaintiff’s wife and son, who noted that a relative had called, laughing after seeing the publication referring to the husband as a ghost worker.
In the ruling, it was stated that for a cause of action to exist, an alleged defamatory statement must be published to a third party.
“If the statement is made only to the person the letter is addressed to, this is insufficient for a defamation claim. However, if a defamatory statement is given to an intermediary, such as a clerk who can learn its contents, it is considered published to the clerk just as it would be to any other person,” noted the magistrate.
In evidence presented before the court, the first appellant testified that the letter was delivered to her workplace and was received from her colleagues; it was not in a sealed envelope. The second appellant testified that she received the letter from her employer’s office, and that any correspondence in that office must be reviewed by her boss, who had read the letter.
The plaintiff’s case relied on various testimonies, including his own and those of witnesses such as Charles Auma Modi (former County Director of Human Resources), Flavian Awino Ouma (the plaintiff’s wife), and John Collince Maxwell (the plaintiff’s son), along with documentary evidence, including screenshots demonstrating the viral spread of the disputed letter on social media.
The plaintiff maintained that he did not need to prove the exact manner in which he initially obtained the letter to establish publication or liability.
“What matters is that the letter was disseminated beyond its intended internal recipients and caused actual harm,” he stated.
The defendants, however, maintained that it was undisputed that the plaintiff’s appointment with the first defendant lasted from January 12, 2018, to September 30, 2022.
“In the plaintiff’s testimony, as reflected in the statement dated June 8, 2024, he did not address whether he handed over documents to his superiors or the relevant office when he left the first defendant’s employment,” ruled the magistrate.
The sole witness for the defendants, Ruth Aloo, testified on November 18, 2024, that the plaintiff did not hand over to the incoming officials or his superior when his term of duty ended on September 30, 2022. This explains why his name remained on the payroll for several years.
Aloo further explained that the payroll is simply a list of employees, and being on the list does not necessarily mean one is receiving a salary. She also confirmed that the plaintiff’s name has since been removed from the first defendant’s payroll.
From her testimony and the plain reading of the letter dated May 23, 2024, it was clear the defendants sought to determine from various officers and departmental heads of the first defendant why the plaintiff’s name appeared on the payroll and whether he was still employed there. She added that the letter dated May 23, 2024, was an internal document within the first defendant institution and was not intended for third parties.
“Indeed, there is no evidence that the plaintiff completed a proper handover when his term of employment ended on September 30, 2022,” the ruling noted.
In his testimony, the plaintiff stated that he had attended several interviews but was unable to secure employment due to the content of the publication. This situation has caused him significant emotional distress, stress, and mental anguish not only for himself but also for his entire family who depend on him.
“Based on the evidence presented, the court finds that the plaintiff has successfully proven the tort of defamation against the defendants to the required standard of proof,” ruled the magistrate.
In her ruling, Ms Chepkoech noted that the plaintiff’s claim succeeds to the extent of awarding general damages in the amount of Ksh1 million.
Furthermore, she issued a permanent injunction restraining the defendants, along with their agents, employees, servants, and anyone acting on their behalf, from further uttering, publishing, posting, or broadcasting any defamatory statements against the plaintiff on any media or platform.
She also issued a permanent injunction compelling the defendants, whether by themselves, their agents, employees, or anyone acting under their instructions, to immediately remove the plaintiff’s name from any impugned list and from any media platform that contains defamatory statements against him.
Additionally, the defendants were ordered to pay the costs of the suit and interest of Ksh1 million from the date of judgment.
