Case Summary and Outcome

A Kenyan Magistrate’s Court set aside a preliminary injunction it had previously granted which had prevented an investigative media house from publishing an article about alleged sexual misconduct by a teacher at a girls’ school. The teacher had approached the Court after a journalist had telephoned him to inform him that the media house intended to publish its investigation into his conduct and provided him with a formal right of reply. The Court granted the temporary injunction without hearing from the media house and the media house then approached the Court seeking to have the injunction set aside. The Court highlighted the importance of protecting the rights of vulnerable children and accountability for sexual misconduct and found that the possible harm to the teacher’s reputation was outweighed by the importance of publishing an article that addressed sexual abuse of children and possible institutional cover-ups.

Facts

On May 2, 2025, John-Allan Namu, a Kenyan journalist and co-founder of Africa Uncensored, a Kenyan independent investigative media house, telephoned Peter Albert Ayiro, a teacher at Alliance Girls High School in Nairobi. Namu told Ayiro that Africa Uncensored was intending to publish a story about allegations of sexual misconduct against him. Africa Uncensored focuses on in-depth investigations to “expose the truth faster, foster transparency and accountability and inform the public of issues which directly impact them”. [p. 2]

Africa Uncensored’s journalist, Christine Mungai, had uncovered a “clear consistent pattern of what appeared to be grooming, emotional manipulation and abuse of authority” by Ayiro during his time as a teacher at the school. [p. 2] Mungai’s investigation had found accounts of physical contact with students and at least one “indecent act with a child”, and that Ayiro’s close relationship with former school principals had “contributed to a broader climate of institutional silence”. [p. 2] Africa Uncovered believed that this story illustrated “not only individual misconduct, but systemic failure to protect students”. [p. 2]

Ayiro approached the Magistrate’s Court in Nairobi seeking an injunction, arguing that if any content was published “it will be impossible to retract” given the “speed with which content circulates online” which would cause irreparable damage to his reputation. [p. 2] He argued that because of this, the matter should be heard in camera (in secret) and brought the application ex parte (without notifying Africa Uncensored or its journalists).

The injunction was granted, and Africa Uncensored applied to the same Court for the injunction to be set aside.

Decision Overview

Magistrate Becky Cheloti Mulemia delivered the judgment of the Court. The central issue for the Court’s determination was whether the initial ex parte temporary injunction should have been granted.

Ayiro argued that the allegations put to him in the phone call were “strange and vague” and that although Namu sent him a list of questions on WhatsApp the document was later deleted and he was not able to access it (which was denied by Namu). [p. 1] He submitted that Namu and Mangai had contacted members of his family about the allegations of sexual misconduct which violated his privacy, and that the “threat to publish” would violate his rights to a fair hearing and to data protection. [p. 3] He submitted that the right to freedom of expression is not absolute and the publication of allegations of sexual misconduct without any legal investigation constituted defamation.

Namu described the May 2 phone call as a 35 minute conversation in which Ayiro was given “a formal right of reply” and “fair opportunity to comment” and that Ayiro had denied some allegations and declined to respond to others. [p. 2] He maintained that the investigation into Ayiro’s alleged sexual misconduct was conducted with “journalistic integrity” and that the “driving concern was the child’s safety, institutional accountability and public interest” rather than “a personal vendetta to unjustifiably tarnish a teacher’s reputation”. [p. 2] Namu argued that any interdict would violate his rights to freedom of expression, the media, access to information under articles 34, 34 and 35 of the Constitution and the rights of children under article 53. He submitted that an application to gag the media based on reputation “should not justify silencing credible allegations of sexual exploitation” as the harm in suppressing the allegations outweighs any reputational damage [p. 2] Namu argued that a balance should be struck between the reputational damage to one teacher against the risk of future harm to children, the ability of victims of abuse to speak out and ensuring accountability for sexual misconduct.

Namu argued that the ex parte injunction should be set aside because Ayiro had not disclosed to the Court that Africa Uncensored had provided him and other relevant individuals with a right to reply and had lied by saying that Namu had sent him a document which was then deleted.

The Court examined whether Ayiro had met the requirements for the temporary injunction, based on the Civil Procedure Rules of 2010. It noted that an injunction can only be granted if an applicant demonstrates a prima facie case with a probability of success and that this standard is higher than merely an “arguable” case. [p. 3-4]

The Court noted that the allegations are of grooming, abuse of power, inappropriate emotional and physical relationship and an institutional culture that silenced complaints and that Article 53 of the Constitution requires that “[a] child’s best interests are of paramount importance in every matter concerning the child”. It accepted that although whether the allegations are proven is a matter for a criminal trial, the allegations were supported by the “existence of multiple, consistent accounts involving students” and so the matter was clearly covered by Article 53. The Court held that when a child or allegations of a failure to protect children is relevant to an injunction application, “the threshold for injunctive relief must be evaluated in light of the child’s vulnerability, dependency and the societal imperative to prevent cover-up.” [p. 3]

The Court held that Ayiro had not demonstrated that the “intended publication is manifestly false, recklessly indifferent to the truth or motivated by malice” and found that Ayiro had been granted a right of reply and that the matter was of public interest. [p. 4] It added that a court cannot ignore the evidence and that sexual abuse in schools is often “underreported, difficult to prosecute and frequently silenced by power imbalances”. [p. 4]

In examining the impact of an injunction the Court held that it would have a “chilling effect on victims, discourage whistleblowing, and embolden impunity” and that the child’s interest in being heard outweighs the “temporary discomfort” any adverse media coverage would cause to Ayiro. The Court noted that this was the case where the media coverage had been “responsibly pursued”. [p. 4]

The Court stressed the imperative of child protection and the judicial role in furthering “transparency, accountability and safeguarding the vulnerable”. [p. 4] It added that it would “remain vigilant to ensure that both media freedom and individual dignity are respected, but it shall not permit the law to be used as a tool to shield potentially serious misconduct involving children from legitimate public scrutiny”. [p. 4]

Accordingly, the Court dismissed Ayiro’s application for an injunction against publication and awarded costs to Africa Uncensored.