Mr. Mbuthia complained  that an article titled “want Kenya to be landlocked just do away with the Kadhis courts” written by Mr. Macharia Gaitho and   published in the Daily Nation of 20th April, 2010, was in accurate and inflammatory in breach of article 1a(accuracy and fairness) of the Code. In its reply the Daily Nation states the story was a fair commentary on an issue of immense public interest. It further states that the complaint is an attempt to muzzle the freedom of expression and should therefore be dismissed. This matter has been heard by the tribunal judgment will be issued on notice.

Mr. Kamweti complained that two articles written by Mr. Jaindi Kisero, one headlined “Fury at NBK Managements’ Plot to strip Preferential Shareholders of Equal Rights” published in the Daily Nation of 20th April 2010 and the second one headlined “Fury at NBK Managements’ Plot to strip Preferential Shareholders of Dividend Rights” published in The East African of 19-25 April 2010 were inaccurate and misleading in breach of Article 1 (accuracy and fairness) of the Code. In response to the above Complaint the nation states that the articles were accurate and fair, and that the complainant is not entitled to the reliefs sought. This matter has been heard by the tribunal judgment will be issued on notice.

Ms Nazlin complained that the Nation Media Group and its subsidiaries have exhibited a systematic pattern of was inaccurate, unfair, biased and discriminatory coverage against her in breach of article 1(accuracy and fairness) and has further denied her the opportunity to reply in breach of Article 5 (right of reply), of the Code. In response the Nation states that the complaint is too generalized, devoid of any justifiable particulars, and should therefore be dismissed. This matter has been stood over generally at the request of the Complainant.

Ms. Nazlin complained that a news item aired by Kenya Television Network on the evenings of 11th to 12th July 2009, wherein they broadcast a documentary touching on her arrest and her life in general was in inaccurate, biased and sensational in breach of article 1(accuracy and fairness) she further complains that the standard group have denied her the right of reply in breach of article 5 (right of reply) of the Code. The respondents have refused and or neglected to respond to the complaint and notice despite reminders to do so. This matter has been stood over generally at the request of the Complainant.

Ms. Nazlin complained that an article titled Nazlin losses bid for 3 Range Rovers” published in the Star newspaper of 26th September 2009 was inaccurate false and biased in breach of article 1 (accuracy and fairness) and that despite concerted efforts to have this matter corrected, the Star newspaper has denied her the opportunity to reply in breach of article 5(right of reply) of the Code. In response the Star states that the story was accurate fair and in fact true. This matter has been stood over generally at the request of the Complainant.

Ms. Nazlin complained that the respondents have exhibited a systematic pattern of inaccurate and biased reporting about her, and that they have denied her coverage, and that despite her efforts to address this she has not been granted audience nor a right of reply in breach of article in breach of article 1(accuracy and fairness) and 5(right of reply) of the Code. The respondents through their the advocates Kaplan and Stratton advocates, insist that the stories published regarding the complainant were all accurate, fair, and matter of public interest and that the complainant is not entitled to the reliefs sought. The complainant has requested that this matter be stood over generally.

Ms. Passaris complained to the Council that  two article headlined “Hard times for Advertising Diva Passaris” and Passaris Under Siege respectively published in the Weekly Citizen of 2 – 8th August and Citizen  of 9th -15thAugust 2010  were  inaccurate, obscene, and sexist in breach of articles: 1(Accuracy and Fairness), 9(Obscenity, Taste and Tone in Reporting) and 15(Sex Discrimination) of schedule 2 of the Media Act 2007 (The Code of Conduct for the Practice Of Journalism) hereinafter the “Code”. The Weekly Citizen has maintained that the stories were factual and did not offend any Articles of the Code and would put the complainant to strict proof thereof. This matter is part heard.

Mr. Miguna complains that an article headlined “Why won’t Miguna let sleeping volcanoes lie” written by Runji Wa Mbeu, and published in the Standard Newspaper of 29th July 2010, was inaccurate, misleading, and inflammatory in breach of articles: 1(accuracy and fairness), 11(covering ethnic, religious and sectarian conflict) of schedule 2 of the Media act 2007 (the code of conduct for the practice of journalism) hereinafter the “Code”. The respondents aver that the story was fair and stand by it. This matter is part heard.

The Aids law Project complained to the Council that on 21st October 2010 and subsequently thereafter in their breakfast show and on their Facebook page on the internet, the first and second respondents broadcast an item that purported to disclose the HIV and AIDS status of an alleged cheating spouse in manner that was inaccurate and misleading in breach of article 1(accuracy and fairness) of the code of Conduct for the practice of journalism in Kenya hereinafter the “Code. The respondent replied maintaining their position and insists that the complaint should be dismissed for lack of locus. This matter is part heard.

The complainant petitioned the Council about an  article titled “Thou shall not lie with mankind as thou would with Womankind” authored by the 3rd respondent under the direct knowledge and authority of the 1st and 2nd respondents, was inaccurate, unfair and biased in breach of article 1(Accuracy and Fairness)  of the Code. The respondents deny the accusation and further state that the complainants misapprehended the context of the article, and such the complaint should be dismissed. This matter has been set down for hearing.

The complainant complained to the Media Council that an article titled “Nock Looses Millions in Sweet Heart Deal” which appeared in the Standard newspaper of 10th August 2010 written by Kenneth Kwama was inaccurate misleading and biased. He wanted an apology and clarification. The matter went to full hearing wherein the complainant reiterated the contents of his complaint. The respondents also gave their position on the issues. Judgment will be delivered on notice.

Mr Miguna Miguna complained to the council that story titled Miguna looses it again published in the Nairobi law Monthly magazine of  October 2010 was misleading, inaccurate and biased in breach of1(Accuracy and Fairness), of the Code. This matter was heard by the Commission; however the respondents were barred from the proceedings on account of failing to respond to the Commissions’ notification within the stipulated 14 days. The judgment will be delivered on notice.

The Council complained to the Commission that an  article  titled police swoop in to Muliro Gardens to stop sex Party was accompanied by obscene, vulgar and abhorrent photos in breach of article 9(Obscenity, Taste, and Tone in Reporting) of the Code. The respondents contend that the issue was a matter of public debate and was not in breach of the Code.

The complainant complained to the Council that the respondents in their “Yaliyotokea” programme of Wednesday 2nd March 2011 evening and 3rd March 2011 morning broadcast a commentary that referred to the complainant in a manner that was inaccurate, misleading, biased and sexist in breach of Articles 1(Accuracy and Fairness) and 15(Sexual Discrimination) of the Code. Upon contact by the Commission the respondents offered to apologize and retract the story in manner she chooses, she is yet to respond to the proposal.

The petitioner complained to the Council that an article titled “Kenyans Beware, YK92 is back” authored by the 2nd respondent published in the Star newspaper of 24th May 2010 under the direct knowledge and authority of the 1st respondent, referred to the complainant in manner that was inaccurate, misleading, biased and inflammatory in breach of Article 1(a, d, e, i,) (Accuracy and Fairness) of the Code. The respondents aver that their story was factual and did not offend the Code. This matters is part heard.