Pastor and motivational speaker Robert Burale has filed suit at Milimani Chief Magistrates’ Court seeking Ksh.20 million in damages, a permanent injunction and an order forcing the removal of an interview that aired on Alex Mwakideu’s YouTube channel titled “My Biggest Mistake Was Marrying Robert Burale.” The suit, filed under the court’s fast-track procedure, says the interview, which premiered on October 4, 2025, portrayed Burale as “manipulative, hypocritical, a swindler, and homosexual,” and that those statements were false and malicious. The court papers further accuse the host of failing to verify the claims or seek a reply before publication.
Why Did Alex Mwakideu’s Interview Ignite A Row?
The interview that sparked the lawsuit was carried on Alex Mwakideu’s channel and featured his sister, gospel singer Rozinah Mwakideu, who used the platform to reflect on her one-year marriage to Burale. Rozina told her brother that marrying Burale in August 2012 was “the biggest mistake of my life” and described that year as “the darkest period” of her life, remarks that were clipped, shared and widely discussed across social platforms after the podcast aired. The video itself and several short clips quickly circulated on YouTube and social feeds.
How Did Rozina Break Up With Robert Burale?
As per multiple accounts, Rozina says she met Burale around 2011 and married him in August 2012, roughly a year after they met; the union reportedly lasted “one year and two days” before they separated. In her interview, she said she had ignored warnings, including from her mother, and that the relationship contained “red flags” that accumulated until the marriage collapsed. Rozina described a period of control and isolation after moving into Burale’s family home in Karen, and recounted planning an escape before eventually leaving the marriage.
What Are The Allegations Against Alex Mwakideu?
In the podcast, Rozina made several serious allegations about the marriage, all presented as her personal account. She said the couple remained celibate during their honeymoon and that early in the relationship, she received anonymous warnings about Burale.
She described episodes of depression and even an attempted self-harm incident, saying she once contemplated taking her life and that Burale ultimately stopped her from doing so. Some outlets that covered the interview published more sensational claims she relayed, including that she accessed Burale’s laptop and found explicit material and emails suggesting he had told other women the marriage was for show, and that another woman paid for the honeymoon, but those are Rozina’s allegations and are being reported as such.
Robert Burale’s Demands In Court Lawsuit
In the suit, Burale describes himself as a cleric of national repute and says the interview lowered his reputation among “right-thinking members of society,” caused ridicule, mental anguish and jeopardised his ministry and livelihood. He is seeking: a mandatory and permanent injunction ordering removal of the video and related posts (including re-uploads), a widely published apology and general and aggravated damages totalling Ksh 20 million plus costs. The papers also quote and rely on time-stamped excerpts from the interview to allege that the clips were defamatory. Burale additionally accuses Alex of professional negligence for not seeking his response prior to publication.
What Did Alex Mwakideu Do?
Alex has publicly denied that the interview was a “setup.” Speaking on Radio 47 days after the podcast went viral, he said he did not know many of the details Rozina disclosed, denied orchestrating a sting against Burale and said he had hosted both Burale and Rozina after public pressure and viewer interest. Alex also said he received many calls from Burale after the interview and later distanced himself from some of the more explosive claims that emerged in the conversation. Meanwhile, Rozina released a follow-up video saying her intent was to tell her story and not to “discredit” anyone.
How The Case Is Likely To Play Out
Under Kenyan civil law, defamation (libel or slander) allows an aggrieved person to seek damages, injunctions and retractions; recent Kenyan judgments show courts are willing to order takedowns and remedies where reputations have been harmed by online publications. Plaintiffs must ordinarily prove that the published statements were false and caused reputational harm, while defendants typically rely on defences such as truth/justification, honest opinion (fair comment) or privileged communication.
Online material can be the subject of injunctions and removal orders — courts have done so in recent years, and many legal commentators note that public figures can face a higher evidential hurdle when suing over a comment that is presented as opinion versus as a factual claim. There is also a statutory limitation window to note: many analyses and practice guides point to time limits for bringing libel claims (often within a year from publication for prompt proceedings), though procedural nuances can extend or affect timing in practice.
What This Means For Robert Burale And The Mwakideus
For Robert Burale, a successful suit could restore his public reputation, secure damages and force content removal, but losing could leave the interview’s narrative intact and further fuel public scrutiny. For Rozina, the suit exposes her to counter-litigation risk (if the court finds material false or malicious), though plaintiffs in defamation cases must still convince a court of falsity and harm.
For Alex Mwakideu, the legal exposure hinges on editorial process: was there reasonable verification, did he afford a right to reply, and did he invite viewers to amplify allegations in a way that shows recklessness? Beyond the courtroom, broadcasters and independent podcasters may face renewed debate about ethics when interviewing family members about private disputes involving public figures: critics have already argued the format invited sensationalism, while supporters say airing both sides is legitimate public interest journalism. Several outlets reported a rapid online split between supporters of Burale and those who sided with Rozina’s decision to speak out, illustrating how quickly reputational battles now play out in social media time.
What Happens Next?
The suit is filed under fast-track procedure; the defendants have time to file a response and may raise truth or fair comment defences, or challenge jurisdictional or procedural points. Expect the following short-term developments: (1) the defendants’ pleadings and any interim injunction applications about takedowns, (2) lines of media commentary and social-media campaigning from both supporters and detractors, and (3) legal argument over whether the contested lines in the podcast are statements of fact (actionable) or opinion/fair comment (protected). If the court orders removal, it would reinforce existing precedents about platform liability and takedowns in Kenyan online defamation law; if the court declines relief, public debate and reputational effects will remain the primary consequence.
The Robert Burale lawsuit is a modern case study where private history, family ties, online platforms and reputational law collide. The outcome will matter not just to the individuals named but to how personal narratives, especially those involving public figures, are handled by podcasters and social platforms in Kenya. For readers and media practitioners alike, it raises familiar but urgent questions: when is the airing of a painful personal story in the public interest, and when does it become a remediable attack on reputation?
ALSO READ: Kenyan To Return Home After 13 Years on Death Row in Saudi Arabia
