MP Mohamed Ali claims Sh10m from Kenyatta family's Brookside Dairy
Brookside Dairy wanted the High Court to order Nyali MP Mohamed Ali (inset) to pay an unspecified amount in damages after he alleged the firm was exploiting and financially oppressing dairy farmers.
What you need to know:
- The company sued the MP in July 2022 over allegations that he incited the public at a political rally to cause economic and commercial harm to its business.
- Justice Hedwig Ong’udi struck out the suit in October 2022 after the court found the claim was filed in the wrong forum – the Constitutional and Human Rights Division. The MP was also awarded costs.
Nyali MP Mohamed Ali is seeking Sh10 million from Brookside Dairy Limited, in the form of costs incurred in court during litigation of a defamation case the company filed against him last year.
Mr Ali has lodged a legal fee note at the High Court in Milimani, Nairobi, claiming a sum of Sh10,049,725 from the milk processing company, which is associated with the family of former President Uhuru Kenyatta.
His claim comes after the company lost a bid to get damages from him for business losses. Brookside’s prayer for him to be gagged was also rejected.
The company sued the MP in July 2022 over allegations that he incited the public at a political rally to cause economic and commercial harm to its business.
The milk processor wanted the court to order the MP to pay an unspecified amount of money in damages after he alleged it was exploiting and financially oppressing dairy farmers.
Justice Hedwig Ong’udi struck out the suit in October 2022 after the court found the claim was filed in the wrong forum – the Constitutional and Human Rights Division. The MP was also awarded costs.
Judge Ong'udi rendered the ruling following a preliminary objection filed by Mr Ali's lawyer, Adrian Kamotho, who challenged the powers of the Constitutional and Human Rights Court to determine the issues raised by the company.
And now, in what sets stage for a fresh tussle, the lawyer has filed a fee note (bill of costs) demanding Sh10,049,725 for the work done in defending Mr Ali against Brookside's prayer for orders for gross violation of constitutional rights, conducting research and preparing for the case.
Other services rendered include court attendances and document filings.
The bill is awaiting assessment by the court's deputy registrar and the matter is fixed for mention on April 17.
The lawsuit arose from remarks the MP allegedly made on March 3, 2022 at a public political rally in Nyeri town. He alleged that Brookside was exploiting farmers by buying raw milk for Sh20 and reselling it at Sh120 after processing.
Court papers show that Mr Ali said, “Uhuru Kenyatta comes here, he buys milk at Sh20, he goes and boils it and then sells it back to you at Sh120.”
In its court papers, the firm said, “The statement meant that the company exploits the dairy farmers who sell and supply milk to it as raw material for its business. The said statement also meant that the company subjects farmers or suppliers to unfair treatment.”
Regarding its consumers, the company said the MP’s statement meant that it sells milk products that were not processed or manufactured to the required health or safety standards and are of substandard quality.
“The statement was meant to, and did cause economic or commercial harm to the company and its business,” Brookside said, adding that its rights under Article 20, 33(2) and 27 of the Constitution were violated by the MP, whom it accused of advocating for public hatred against it.
By vilifying its products, the company argued, Mr Ali violated its constitutional right to a good reputation.
Brookside also alleged violation of its rights as stipulated in Articles 20, 27 and 33 of the Constitution (on the Bill of Rights).
Article 20 provides that The Bill of Rights applies to all law and binds all State organs and all persons, and that every person should enjoy the rights and fundamental freedoms in the Bill of Rights.
Article 27 talks about equality and freedom from discrimination. It provides that every person is equal before the law and has the right to equal protection and equal benefit of the law.
It also provides that equality includes the full and equal enjoyment of all rights and fundamental freedoms.
Article 33 talks about freedom of expression. It provides that every person has the right to freedom of expression, which includes freedom to seek, receive or impart information or ideas; freedom of artistic creativity and academic freedom, as well as freedom of scientific research.
The Constitution says the right to freedom of expression does not extend to propaganda for war, incitement to violence, hate speech or advocacy of hatred that constitutes ethnic incitement, vilification of others or incitement to cause harm.
It also adds that the freedom of expression should not be based on any grounds of discrimination and that in the exercise of the right to freedom of expression, every person should respect the rights and reputations of others.
But in his preliminary objection, Mr Ali's lawyer argued that the suit was incompetent and that the company’s intention was to gag him. He downplayed claims he had violated the company’s constitutional rights.
Lawyer Kamotho argued that the rights enshrined in the Constitution, under the Bill of Rights, are to be enjoyed by natural persons, not corporate entities.
“The Bill of Rights affords protections and guarantees for natural persons as individuals which protection does not extend to limited liability companies such as Brookside,” he said.
He added that according to Article 19 (3)(a) of the Constitution, the rights and fundamental freedoms in the Bill of Rights belong to individuals and are incapable of being granted to a limited liability company.
