The High Court has restrained former Nairobi Governor Mike Sonko from publishing defamatory statements about Canada-based lawyer Miguna Miguna, pending determination of a Sh75 million claim arising from a social media broadcast.
Justice Kennedy Kandet ruled that Mr Sonko had failed to provide a factual basis for specific allegations linking Dr Miguna to the contested statements touching on criminal conduct, despite arguing that his statements were responses to earlier accusations against him.
The civil dispute stems from a public exchange between the two former Nairobi gubernatorial rivals after Dr Miguna questioned the source of Mr Sonko's finances.
Mr Sonko subsequently published a broadcast titled “Mike Sonko’s Response to Miguna Miguna on the cash & money laundering claims” on March 3, 2026, prompting Dr Miguna to issue legal notices demanding a retraction.
Dr Miguna, who practises law in Kenya and Canada, lodged a defamation suit seeking Sh75 million in damages, a deletion order and a public apology. He told the court that the online publications defamed him and threatened his professional standing.
In his application, Dr Miguna sought orders compelling Mr Sonko to remove the disputed videos, posts and text broadcasts from X, YouTube, Facebook and Instagram.
He also wanted an injunction preventing further defamatory statements and permission to pursue contempt proceedings if Mr Sonko failed to comply with the removal order within 24 hours.
Dr Miguna said notices dated March 5 and 6 2026 failed to secure a retraction. Instead, he accused Mr Sonko of repeating the claims, refusing to apologise, publishing his telephone number and threatening an assault at the airport.
He argued that the circulation threatened the professional trust necessary for his legal practice and could not adequately be remedied through damages.
Mr Sonko opposed the application, saying Dr Miguna had previously accused him of “being a money launderer, cartel operator and drug lord”. He described the contested publications as a proportionate response intended to defend his reputation and denied acting maliciously.
He also argued that Dr Miguna had concealed his own earlier publications and had approached the court without clean hands. Mr Sonko maintained that the proposed restrictions would suppress lawful public debate and that Dr Miguna had not demonstrated injury requiring immediate intervention.
He denied malice and placed the exchange in the context of a longstanding public and political disagreement. He invoked justification, fair comment, Dr Miguna’s public profile and freedom of expression.
However, Justice Kandet found that allegations about Dr Miguna's supposed conduct were distinct from criticism of Mr Sonko's finances.
The judge said Mr Sonko's affidavit did not identify an incident, witness, investigation or other source supporting the allegations.
“The proposed justification must be assessed against the sting of those particular imputations. To show that the applicant accused the respondent of money laundering would establish the occasion for a response, if proved,” the judge ruled.
The court also questioned the electronic evidence presented by both parties. Mr Sonko's screenshots and archived posts lacked an identified certificate establishing their extraction and production under Section 106B of the Evidence Act. One archive extract displayed “Invalid Date”.
Dr Miguna's electronic evidence certificate also contained a discrepancy. It referred to material fed into his laptop on November 19, 2025, although the disputed publications allegedly appeared in March 2026.
The judge nevertheless found that Dr Miguna had established an apparent infringement of his reputation through the specific allegations.
He said their repetition could interfere with professional confidence in a way that monetary compensation might not adequately repair.
“Further dissemination of the identified criminal accusations would extend an existing and serious interference with professional confidence in a manner not adequately measured or repaired by money alone,” said the judge.
The judge declined to compel immediate removal of existing publications, explaining that Dr Miguna had sought that relief only pending determination of his application, not the entire suit.
He also declined to determine the complaints about threats and telephone-number publication because they were not separately presented as prayers. The case is set for mention on December 3, 2026.
