The High Court has barred Kileleshwa Member of County Assembly Robert Alai from publishing or sharing any further defamatory statements about Nairobi lawyer Danstan Omari, following a heated online dispute that has now escalated into a major legal battle.
In a ruling delivered at the Milimani Law Courts, Justice Janet Mulwa issued temporary injunctive orders stopping Alai from posting or republishing any remarks deemed defamatory about Omari until the case is fully heard and determined. The decision comes after Omari filed a defamation suit seeking KSh 100 million in damages.
Court documents show that the dispute arose from social media posts in which Alai allegedly referred to Omari using derogatory terms, including calling him a “joker” and likening him to a “pig.” Omari argues that the statements crossed the line from criticism into personal attack, causing serious harm to his reputation.
The lawyer, who is described as a well-known criminal law practitioner with a wide client base, told the court that Alai’s large online following amplified the damage. With hundreds of thousands of followers, Alai’s posts were widely shared and discussed, making the alleged harm more severe and far-reaching.
Through his lawyer, Shadrack Wambui, Omari stated that the remarks affected both his personal dignity and professional standing. He claims to have suffered reputational injury and financial loss, prompting the KSh 100 million compensation demand.
In granting the orders, Justice Mulwa directed that Alai must refrain from making any further statements about Omari on social media or any other platform until the case is concluded. The court also ruled that the costs of the application will be determined after the final judgment.
This case adds to a growing list of legal disputes involving the outspoken MCA. Previously, veteran broadcaster Fred Obachi Machokaa sued Alai over alleged false claims about his health. Machokaa, represented by Omari, said the statements harmed his reputation and caused emotional distress, and he sought damages, an apology and a permanent injunction.
As the defamation suit proceeds, the court’s ruling sends a strong signal on the limits of online commentary and the legal consequences of defamatory speech in the digital age.
