Journalist Emmy Akwam has sued a man and his wife over defamatory remarks made about him on WhatsApp.

Through his lawyers of M/s Okanyum, Namusana & Co. Advocates, Akwam Emmy Milton says that Joseph Odongo and his wife, Jenet, went on “several fora” on April 27, 2025, claiming that he (Akwam) sourced and carried a news article about their family after a bribe of Shs 450,000. Akwam is the Managing Director of The Northern Daily (tndnews).

Akwam says Odongo’s actions and that of his wife “instigated a feeling of hatred, contempt, ridicule, and a fear of dislike” and that “it lowered our client’s reputation before the right-thinking members of society.”

Akwam says that these utterances have caused him psychological torture and mental anguish, for which he holds the defendants liable jointly and severally to pay general damages to the tune of Shs 350 million.

Odongo and his wife were, on April 14, 2025, served with an intention to sue. The pair ignored the same.

Akwam wants a declaration that the statements made by the defendants are defamatory, an order of a permanent injunction against Odongo and his wife restraining the pair from further utterances of defamatory statements, general damages, interest, cost of suit, and any other remedy “this court deems fit and proper in the circumstance.”

Court Awards KSh 2 Million for Defamation Over WhatsApp Comment

Milimani Law Courts, Nairobi. In a landmark ruling that highlights the growing influence of digital communications on defamation cases, the High Court has ordered Mr. Godfrey Onyango to pay KSh 2 million in damages to Dr. Selina Vukinu for defamatory remarks made in a community WhatsApp group.

The case, heard before Justice Asneth Ongeri, involved residents of Greenpark Cluster Three in Machakos County. The dispute arose after Mr. Onyango used the word “bullshit” in reference to Dr. Vukinu’s legal efforts to obtain a court order halting developments on the estate’s open playground pending resolution of an ongoing case.

Justice Ongeri ruled that Onyango’s language was defamatory and harmful to Dr. Vukinu’s reputation. “Those words had the effect of ruining the plaintiff’s reputation. There was a civil way of handling the dispute other than to insult the plaintiff. I accordingly find that the plaintiff is entitled to damages for defamation,” the judge stated.

Mr. Onyango did not dispute that he posted the statement in a WhatsApp group consisting of 73 members. In his defense, he argued that his comment was made as part of an ongoing discussion about the playground issue and that it was not driven by spite, malice, or ill-will. He maintained that his words were a form of justified commentary rather than a personal attack.

However, the court found that Onyango’s statement had caused significant disruption within the group, sparking a heated debate among members. The controversy eventually led to Dr. Vukinu being removed from the group.

In awarding the KSh 2 million in damages, the court underscored the importance of maintaining decorum and civility in digital platforms, especially when discussing sensitive matters. The judgment serves as a clear reminder that defamatory statements made online, even in semi-private forums like WhatsApp groups, can have serious legal consequences.

Are WhatsApp Messages Admissible as Evidence in Court?

The widespread use of instant messaging services—particularly since the advent of smartphones—has made increasingly relevant the question of whether messages exchanged via such platforms (especially WhatsApp, but also others like Telegram, as recently confirmed by the Ancona Court of Appeal, ruling no. 1541/2023) may be used as evidence in court proceedings. This also applies to traditional SMS messages.

The issue was authoritatively addressed in 2023 by the Italian Supreme Court’s Civil United Sections in judgment no. 11197/2023. Echoing prior rulings by the Criminal Sections, the Court held that “WhatsApp messages and SMSs stored on a mobile device qualify as documents… and as such may legitimately be acquired through mere photographic reproduction.”

The Court embraced the position taken by the Disciplinary Section of the High Council of the Judiciary (CSM)—in a disciplinary proceeding involving a magistrate—stating that WhatsApp messages incorporated into proceedings via screenshots constitute documentary evidence, provided the data collection method is reliable. When the identity of the message’s author can be verified, the messages are considered authentic and trustworthy.

In short, the photographic reproduction of a chat, according to the Court, constitutes documentary evidence, especially when the origin and integrity of the screenshots can be established.

More recently, in ruling no. 1254 of January 18, 2025 (Pres. Bertuzzi, Est. Trapuzzano), the Supreme Court took a further step. Not only did it reaffirm the stance of the United Sections concerning the admissibility of WhatsApp chats as documentary evidence, but it also evaluated their evidentiary weight.

In doing so, the Court equated WhatsApp and SMS messages to non-certified emails, noting that such messages qualify as “electronic documents representing acts, facts, or data of legal significance,” and though unsigned, fall under the category of computer-based or mechanical reproductions as defined by Article 2712 of the Italian Civil Code.

According to this article, such representations “constitute full evidence of the facts and events they depict unless the party against whom they are presented disputes their accuracy.” The Court reinforced this interpretation by referencing Civil Cassation no. 11584/2024.

Although a WhatsApp message does not bear the sender’s handwritten signature—and therefore may not constitute valid consent for certain legal acts like contract formation (see Cass. civ. 22012/2023)—such messages, like emails and SMSs, can still serve as full proof of the facts they recount.

This recent case law illustrates how the judiciary is adapting to technological change and new communication methods. For legal practitioners, it confirms the evidentiary utility of digital messages in accurately reconstructing factual events in judicial proceedings.

Ultimately, when the origin, authenticity, and integrity of the message are established, it may be used as valid evidence in court—clarifying the scope of responsibilities or obligations undertaken by the sender at the time of transmission.