🚨 A post on X has cost KSh 3 million, and the warning in this judgment reaches not only the person who wrote it but everyone who shares a claim before checking whether it is true. This is the defamation judgment in favour of musician Hubert Mbuku Nakitare (Nonini), delivered by the Milimani Commercial Magistrate's Court on 26 October 2026. Here is what it means. Musician Nonini sued Music Copyright Society of Kenya (MCSK) CEO Ezekiel Mutua for defamation following a public fallout over music royalty distributions and social media attacks. The court found that false statements published about Nonini on X had lowered his reputation in the eyes of right-thinking members of society, and awarded him KSh 3 million in damages. That phrase, right-thinking members of society, is the legal test for defamation. A statement is defamatory when it would make ordinary, reasonable people think less of the person, or expose them to hatred, ridicule or contempt. To succeed, a claimant must show three things: that the statement was defamatory, that it referred to them, and that it was published to at least one other person. Because a written post is a permanent form, the law treats the harm as presumed, and the claimant does not have to prove a specific loss. There is a complete defence, and it is the one that matters most here. Truth. If a statement is true, it is not actionable, however damaging. That is why the falsity of the statements was central. The remedy exists for false claims, not merely unwelcome ones. Liability does not stop with the author. In law, anyone who publishes or republishes a defamatory statement to a third party can be sued, and that includes resharing, retweeting or repeating what someone else said. I was only sharing it is not a defence. Each republication is treated as a fresh publication. The legal dispute worth noting. On one side, freedom of expression is protected by Article 33 of the Constitution, and social media has given ordinary people a voice they never had before. Large awards for online posts can make people afraid to speak, to criticise the powerful, or to raise matters of public concern, and public figures must accept a fair amount of hard scrutiny. On the other side, Article 33 is not unlimited. It does not protect a reputation-destroying falsehood, and the Constitution itself requires respect for the reputation and dignity of others under Articles 33 and 28. A lie that reaches thousands in seconds can do lasting harm, and a person whose name is damaged is entitled to a remedy. Where the line falls between robust, protected speech and an actionable falsehood is the question every post sits near. Key takeaway: publishing a false and damaging statement about someone can cost you, and so can sharing one. Truth is a defence, verification is protection, and a repost is still a publication in the eyes of the law. 👉 Follow @Lexken_EMSLaw for practical legal insights on defamation and online speech.