High Court Extends Interim Orders in KEWOTA Case Against Standard Group, Sets October Hearing

The High Court has extended interim orders in the constitutional petition filed by the Kenya Women Teachers Association (KEWOTA) and two other petitioners against Standard Group PLC and five other respondents, as the matter continues before the Milimani Constitutional and Human Rights Division.

The case, filed as Milimani HCCHRPET E250/2026: KEWOTA & 2 Others vs. Standard Group PLC & 5 Others, came up for inter partes hearing of the petitioners’ application, with all respondents represented by a single counsel.

During the proceedings, counsel for the petitioners informed the court that they were fully prepared to proceed with the hearing as scheduled and urged the court to allow the matter to move forward without further delay. However, counsel appearing for the respondents sought additional time to file and serve responses to the petition and accompanying application.

The respondents’ advocate told the court that he had recently been unwell, a situation he said had affected the preparation of the responses. He further submitted that the matter was complex in nature and involved several parties, adding that the respondents had not yet finalized and executed the affidavits required to respond comprehensively to the claims raised in the petition.

On that basis, the respondents requested a 14-day extension within which to prepare, file, and serve their responses.

The petitioners opposed any attempt that would have resulted in the lapse of the interim reliefs previously granted by the court. They successfully applied for an extension of the interim orders, arguing that the orders were necessary to preserve the substratum of the petition pending full hearing and determination of the dispute.

Following arguments by both sides, the court confirmed that the interim orders earlier issued would remain in force until the petition is heard and determined.

The court then issued a series of timelines intended to facilitate the expeditious disposal of the matter.

First, the respondents were directed to file and serve their responses to the petition within 14 days.

Secondly, the petitioners were granted leave to file supplementary responses, together with their written submissions, within 14 days of being served with the respondents’ pleadings.

The respondents will thereafter file and serve their written submissions within 14 days after receiving the petitioners’ submissions.

The court further directed that parties appear for highlighting of submissions on October 5, 2026, when the matter will be mentioned for further directions and possible confirmation of compliance with the timelines issued.

The petition stems from a dispute arising out of broadcasts and publications aired on KTN News and related platforms on or about April 12 and 13, 2026, concerning allegations of wrongdoing within KEWOTA.

In a strongly worded demand letter issued earlier by the law firm of Alakonya Law acting for KEWOTA, the teachers’ association accused the media house of airing defamatory content alleging fraudulent financial schemes, illegal salary deductions, money laundering, nepotism, and improper dealings with public officials.

KEWOTA denied the allegations and maintained that the publications were false, malicious, and unsupported by evidence. The association further contended that the broadcasts portrayed it as a corrupt and criminal enterprise operating outside the law, thereby causing serious reputational harm to both the organization and its leadership.

The petitioners have also accused the respondents of proceeding with publication despite allegedly being aware that the principal source behind the allegations had recanted and withdrawn the claims prior to broadcast.

The matter has since attracted significant public attention owing to the prominence of the parties involved, including one of the country’s leading media houses and a national teachers’ association representing thousands of women educators across Kenya.

Legal observers say the case is likely to raise important constitutional questions touching on freedom of the media, responsible journalism, reputational rights, and the extent to which media organizations may be held liable for allegedly defamatory broadcasts.

The continuation of the interim orders means that the protections earlier granted by the court will remain operational as the parties prepare for the substantive hearing of the petition in the coming months.