NAIROBI, Kenya, Sep 8 — The Supreme Court has annulled two superior court decisions absolving the news media of blame over the publication of images of minors charged with arson.
In its ruling on a matter arising from a 2012 arson case against seven Mugoiri Girls School students, the country’s apex court held that both the High Court and the Court of Appeal erred by raising public interest above the protection of children’s rights.
The court, sitting as a full bench, further held that the two courts failed to properly weight limitations to rights and fundamental freedoms under Article 24 of the Constitution.
“Both superior courts below erred in raising the status of public interest over the
protection and the best interest of the children without properly subjecting the limitation to Article 24 of the Constitution,” the court ruled on Friday.
The court further held that news outlets would still have given the matter fair coverage without revealing the identities of the students involved.
“The 1st to 4th respondents would have achieved the same goal of keeping the public informed by running the story without the children’s names, photographs or identities,” the Supreme Court stated.
“The combined respondents’ actions were in violation of Articles 50(8), Article 31 and Article 53(2) of the Constitution,” the court explained.
Loss and injury
The Supreme Court also agreed with the appellants claim for compensation to cure personal loss suffered by the aggrieved students.
“An injured party is entitled to damages for the loss and injury suffered under
private law causes of action, such as tort. In situations like those, compensation for
personal loss may be granted upon proof of such loss or damage.”
The court defined damages awarded in such cases as either compensatory or
vindicatory noting that key objective would be to protect the rights that have been infringed.
“Once a petitioner has presented proof on a balance of probabilities that his or her rights were violated, the court must vindicate and affirm the significance of the violated rights, even though the petitioner may not present evidence to demonstrate the loss suffered as a result of the violation.”
Both the High Court and the Court of Appeal had dismissed the suit citing five media houses for violations holding that in publishing images of the said students, the newsrooms sought to uphold public interest.
