Several online publications concerning Capital Pay International Limited have become the subject of a sweeping legal battle after the company moved to court against media organisations, technology platforms, web-hosting companies and domain registrars over stories it says contain defamatory allegations linking it to corruption and other wrongdoing.
Among the media organisations caught up in the case is South Sudan-based Eye Radio, whose specified publications are among more than 100 electronic locations identified in documents filed before the High Court in Kisumu.
Some Eye Radio story URLs connected to the dispute are currently returning “404 Not Found” when accessed, meaning the content is no longer publicly available at those locations.
The development follows interim orders issued by Justice Joe M. Omido on September 7, 2026, in High Court Civil Case HCCC/E029/2026, pitting Capital Pay International Limited against Google LLC, Microsoft Corporation and 34 other defendants.
The judge allowed Capital Pay’s Chamber Summons, certified its Notice of Motion as urgent and granted prayers 2 to 19 of the application on an interim basis.
The court ordered that the defendants be served and scheduled the matter for mention on September 17, 2026.
The order contains a penal notice warning that disobedience or non-observance after service could result in penal consequences.
Capital Pay disputes corruption allegations
At the centre of the case are numerous publications which Capital Pay alleges have damaged its corporate reputation.
According to the company’s court filings, the disputed publications allegedly associate Capital Pay or its platform with corruption, kleptocracy, theft or diversion of public funds, illicit financial flows, fictitious taxation, unlawful levies, political ownership, unlawful procurement, intimidation, abduction or rendition, witness suppression and claims concerning a United States corporate sanctions designation.
Capital Pay denies the allegations and has asked the court to intervene against the publications and their continued dissemination online.
The company further disputes what it describes as the conflation of separate Capital Pay and Crawford entities and the alleged presentation of individual visa restrictions or investigative allegations as evidence of an operative corporate sanctions designation against Capital Pay.
The litigation extends far beyond Eye Radio.
Court documents identify Radio Tamazuj, Kenya Insights, Eye Media operating Eye Radio, Asempa Limited — publisher of Africa Confidential — Indigo Publications SAS, publisher of Africa Intelligence, Africa Press, JamiiForums and OpenPetition.vip among the direct publishers or publication operators involved in the proceedings.
Operators of specified Facebook, X, TikTok, LinkedIn and Telegram publications have also been brought into the case.
Eye Radio and its host named separately
The court documents make an important distinction between publishers accused of controlling the disputed publications and companies merely providing the technical infrastructure on which websites operate.
Eye Media, operating Eye Radio, is classified as a direct publisher controlling scheduled Eye Radio website and branded social-media publications.
Hostinger International Limited, meanwhile, is separately identified as a hosting provider connected to Eye Radio. The documents do not accuse Hostinger of authoring Eye Radio’s stories. Instead, its stated role relates to provider-side preservation and implementation concerning material within its technical control.
Google and Bing also targeted
Capital Pay’s legal strategy does not stop at the original publishers.
Google and Microsoft, which operates Bing, are defendants because of their roles in indexing and presenting online material through search engines.
The interim relief sought includes de-indexing or delisting the exact URLs identified in the court schedule, together with associated snippets or cached search-derived presentations reproducing the allegations complained of.
The case also targets specified social-media content and requires relevant parties to preserve records before restricting access.
That preservation requirement potentially covers information such as publication histories, account identifiers, hosting records, access logs, backups, removal histories and related technical records.
The court documents state that the relief is directed at specifically identified electronic locations rather than unidentified future content. They further state that the requested orders are not intended to prohibit unrelated lawful reporting, opinion, privileged communication or material not placed before the court.
Registrars drawn into dispute
Domain registrars have also been joined in the proceedings, although Capital Pay’s pleadings expressly recognise that registrars generally cannot edit individual news articles.
The Master Schedule identifies GoDaddy as registrar for eyeradio.org, kenyainsights.com and jamiiforums.com, while Metaregistrar B.V. is listed for radiotamazuj.org.
InterNetX GmbH is identified in relation to africa-confidential.com, Network Solutions and AMEN are listed for Africa Intelligence’s domains, Cloudflare for africa-press.net and Spaceship for openpetition.vip.
Capital Pay’s requested registrar-level measures focus largely on preserving records and preventing domains from being transferred, deleted or altered in an attempt to evade the proceedings.
The court papers contemplate domain suspension or redirection as a further enforcement mechanism rather than automatically requiring registrars to shut down entire websites
105 electronic locations identified
The scale of the litigation is demonstrated by Capital Pay’s Master Schedule and Inventory, which records 105 unique electronic locations.
The scheduled material stretches across traditional news websites, social-media platforms, search engines and other online services.
However, the interim orders should not be interpreted as a final finding that Capital Pay has proved the publications were defamatory or that the allegations complained of were false.
The dispute now shifts to the next stage, with the High Court having directed that the defendants be served and the matter return for directions on September 17, 2026.
