The report quickly spread, leading to concern among friends, family, and members of the public who believed it to be true.
Wanjigi and his wife later moved to court, arguing that the publication had caused them emotional distress and damaged their reputation.
They claimed the false report interfered with their private lives and exposed them to unnecessary attention and anxiety.
Initially, a lower court agreed with their arguments and awarded them Sh8 million as compensation for the harm caused.
The ruling was seen as a strong statement on the responsibility of media houses to verify information before publishing.
However, the decision was challenged, leading to an appeal. Upon reviewing the case, the Court of Appeal took a different view, stating that the evidence presented did not clearly demonstrate that the couple’s privacy rights had been breached in a way that justified such compensation.
The judges noted that while the publication of a false death notice was unfortunate and could cause distress, not every error automatically amounts to a legal violation of privacy.
They emphasized that for such a claim to succeed, there must be clear proof of how the publication directly interfered with private life beyond general inconvenience or embarrassment.
The court further explained that legal thresholds must be met before damages can be awarded, and in this case, those standards were not sufficiently satisfied. As a result, the Sh8 million award was set aside.
The ruling has sparked discussion about the balance between media freedom and individual rights.
While media organizations are expected to report accurately, courts also require strong evidence when claims of privacy violations are made.
Legal experts say the decision highlights the importance of clearly defining what constitutes a breach of privacy.
They note that courts will carefully examine each case to determine whether the harm claimed meets the required legal standard.