The defamation case filed by Lawyer Danstan Omari against lawyer Nelson Havi was on Monday adjourned after two different law firms turned in court each with conflicting directions from Havi.
Justice Janet Mulwa adjourned the matter to February 12 to allow Havi seven days to iron out his representation as there are two firms on record with totally conflicting directions.
In the case, Omari sued Havi for publishing defamatory statements on Twitter calling him a buffoon and corrupt lawyer.
The court has since barred lawyer Havi from publishing any statements on l Omari either on his X account or media platforms pending hearing of defamation case filed by Omari against him.
“Pending the hearing and determination of this application, an injunction does issue restraining the defendant, whether directly or through his agents, servants, or other persons acting at his behest or under his instructions, from posting, publishing, or disseminating, or facilitating the posting, publication, or dissemination of the words or images enumerated in paragraph (ii) of this motion, or making any statements of a similar nature, whether on his Twitter account styled as ‘Nelson Havi’ under the handle ‘@NelsonHavi,’ or via any other platform, medium, or forum, including television interviews, radio broadcasts, or public speeches, whether oral, written,
electronic, or otherwise,” the order reads.
Through Lawyer Shadrack Wambui, Omari argued that Havi has embarked on a sustained and deliberate campaign of defamation against the Plaintiff. This campaign includes the publication and dissemination of false, malicious, and damaging statements as well as defamatory images targeting the Plaintiff’s reputation, integrity, and professional standing.
“The Defendant, through his Twitter account styled as ‘Nelson Havi’ under the handle ‘@NelsonHavi,’ and through other platforms and mediums, including
social media, public interviews, or broadcasts, has made, caused to be made, published, or disseminated the following defamatory statements and images
aimed at the Plaintiff,” reads court papers.
Wambui further argued that the derogatory references to Omari as a “buffoon at law” and a “buffoon at the bar”, whether directly or indirectly, including through the use of similar language, phrases, or analogies is calculated to ridicule,demean, or diminish his client’s professional standing and reputation in the legal fraternity and society at large.
Omari said that despite his efforts to mitigate the harm, Havi has persisted in his defamatory actions, demonstrating no intention to cease.
He said that the defamatory statements and images are widely accessible on public platforms and are continually reposted, retweeted, and shared by third parties, exponentially increasing the harm to the Plaintiff.
“The Defendant’s conduct includes not only direct defamatory statements but also veiled insinuations, indirect references, and the use of language and imagery that imply false and damaging assertions against the Plaintiff,” reads court papers.
Omari told court that his personal and professional reputation has suffered significant harm as a result of the Defendant’s actions. The statements and images, both individually and collectively, have subjected the Plaintiff to public scorn, ridicule,and contempt, causing emotional distress and professional damage that cannot be adequately compensated by monetary damages alone.
“The defamatory statements and images are patently false, devoid of any factual basis, and made with malicious intent. The Defendant has acted without any lawful justification and with the sole aim of tarnishing the Plaintiff’s reputation and professional standing,” reads court papers.
