A Damaging Story About Your Company Is About to Run. What Can You Actually Do in the Next 24 Hours?

A journalist calls, describes what they intend to publish about your company, and gives you until the end of the day to respond. The instinct is to reach for an injunction to stop the story outright. That instinct is usually wrong, and understanding why changes what you should do in the next 24 hours when a damaging story is about to run.

Why an injunction against publication is hard to get and keep

Article 34 of the Constitution protects the freedom of the media, and Article 33 protects freedom of expression, subject to the duty in Article 33(3) to respect the rights and reputation of others. Courts weigh a company’s reputation against that freedom, and an order that stops a story before it runs is treated as an exceptional remedy, since it silences speech before anyone has tested whether it is true. We have not relied on any single reported decision here, and you should not assume a quick order is available just because you have a strong objection to the story.

An order obtained without the other side present can look like a win for a few days. It is often challenged the moment the media house appears to argue against it, and an order set aside early can leave the story looking more newsworthy than it was.

Why the right of reply matters more than most companies realise

A company that engages seriously with a journalist’s questions, on the record and with specifics instead of a generic denial, does the one thing most likely to shape how the story reads. It also makes any later claim that the company was treated unfairly harder to dismiss. The Media Council Act, 2013 sets out a Code of Conduct for the Practice of Journalism in its Second Schedule, and paragraph 6 deals with corrections and the right to reply. Refusing to engage, on the theory that silence gives you more room to challenge the story later, tends to produce a one-sided story and a weaker position in any later dispute.

What to do in the next 24 hours

• Ask for the specific claims in writing: exactly what the journalist intends to say, not a general description of the topic.
• Separate false statements of fact from statements that are unflattering but accurate. Only the former gives you real legal leverage.
• Preserve your own internal records relevant to the claims immediately, before anyone’s memory becomes the only record.
• Respond in writing, on the record, with documents where you can, and keep a copy of everything sent and received.
• Bring in a defamation-experienced lawyer and, in parallel, whoever handles communications, so the legal and public responses are consistent.

When an injunction application is worth making

It remains a real option where the story would disclose something genuinely confidential or privileged rather than merely unflattering, where the claims are demonstrably false and you can prove it with documents, or where publication would cause harm that money could not repair and there is no public interest in the matter. Even then, expect the media house to challenge the order, and prepare for the possibility that an order obtained without notice will not survive. Treat an injunction as a last resort for narrow cases.

Your options after the story runs

If the story runs and contains false statements, you still have options. A defamation claim is available under the Defamation Act, Cap. 36, subject to the defences of justification in section 14 and fair comment in section 15. The time limit is short: under section 4(2) of the Limitation of Actions Act, an action for libel or slander may not be brought more than twelve months after the cause of action accrued. You can also ask for a correction and a right of reply, and the Media Council Act provides a complaints process under which the Commission can order the offending party to publish an apology and a correction.

The window before publication is valuable because it can shape what is published and because a documented good-faith response strengthens your position either way. It is rarely your only chance to protect the company, and treating it that way tends to produce rushed, adversarial decisions.

Keeping internal and public messaging consistent

While the journalist’s deadline runs, decide who speaks for the company and who does not. Tell staff not to comment to the journalist or on social media, and route every enquiry to one person. Inconsistent statements from different executives are often quoted back later, and an angry public post can turn a story you could have corrected into one about your reaction. Prepare a short holding statement that is accurate, avoids accusing the journalist of bad faith, and can be updated once you see the published text. If the story relies on a leaked document or a former employee, take advice before saying anything about either, since a hasty comment can add a second dispute to the first.