The orders were issued by Senior Principal Magistrate Mary Njagi sitting at the Milimani Commercial Magistrate’s Court following an urgent application lodged by the two complainants through their legal representatives.
According to the court ruling delivered on June 12, 2026, Kauta has been barred from writing, publishing, posting, or circulating statements deemed defamatory on various social media platforms, including WhatsApp groups, Facebook, TikTok, and X.
The court specifically cited the Kitui Assembly Chats and Mulango Ward Development Forum WhatsApp groups as platforms where the contested statements were allegedly shared.
“Pending the inter partes hearing and determination of the application, an order of injunction be and is hereby issued restraining the respondent, whether by himself, his servants, agents, employees or otherwise howsoever, from writing, publishing, posting or circulating, or causing to be published or circulated, any defamatory statements about the plaintiffs,” the court order stated.
The injunction remains in force until the matter is heard and determined by the court.
The dispute arose after Mulewa and Kyalo moved to court under a certificate of urgency seeking conservatory orders against Kauta.
Through court filings, they argued that the governor aspirant had engaged in a sustained campaign of publishing false and damaging statements that had negatively affected their personal and professional reputations.
In a sworn affidavit presented before the court, Mulewa claimed that the statements circulated on social media platforms were false, malicious, and lacked any factual basis.
In a sworn affidavit presented before the court, Mulewa claimed that the statements circulated on social media platforms were false, malicious, and lacked any factual basis.
She argued that the publications were intended to tarnish her image and undermine her standing as the County Secretary of Kitui.
The applicants further contended that unless the court intervened, Kauta would continue making similar allegations and statements, causing further harm to their reputations and public standing.
According to the court documents, the plaintiffs maintained that the continued circulation of the statements risked exposing them to public ridicule, damaging their professional credibility, and eroding public confidence in their leadership roles.
Their lawyers argued that immediate court intervention was necessary to prevent further dissemination of the contested content while the substantive issues raised in the suit are being examined.
The case highlights the growing number of disputes involving social media use and the legal consequences of online publications deemed defamatory.
The applicants further contended that unless the court intervened, Kauta would continue making similar allegations and statements, causing further harm to their reputations and public standing.
According to the court documents, the plaintiffs maintained that the continued circulation of the statements risked exposing them to public ridicule, damaging their professional credibility, and eroding public confidence in their leadership roles.
Their lawyers argued that immediate court intervention was necessary to prevent further dissemination of the contested content while the substantive issues raised in the suit are being examined.
The case highlights the growing number of disputes involving social media use and the legal consequences of online publications deemed defamatory.
Courts have increasingly been called upon to balance constitutional freedoms of expression with the protection of individuals from reputational harm arising from digital platforms.
Legal experts note that injunctions in defamation matters are often granted in exceptional circumstances where there is evidence that continued publication could cause irreparable damage before a case is fully heard.
For now, Kauta is prohibited from making or sharing the contested statements through any social media platform either directly or through associates acting on his behalf.
The matter is scheduled for mention on Wednesday, June 17, 2026, when the court is expected to issue further directions on the hearing of the application and the progress of the case.
Legal experts note that injunctions in defamation matters are often granted in exceptional circumstances where there is evidence that continued publication could cause irreparable damage before a case is fully heard.
For now, Kauta is prohibited from making or sharing the contested statements through any social media platform either directly or through associates acting on his behalf.
The matter is scheduled for mention on Wednesday, June 17, 2026, when the court is expected to issue further directions on the hearing of the application and the progress of the case.
Post a Comment