https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/8472

**REPUBLIC OF KENYA** **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT NAIROBI** **MILIMANI LAW COURTS** **CONSTITUTIONAL AND HUMAN RIGHTS DIVISION** **PETITION NO. E 153 OF 2026** **BETWEEN** **ERICK AGBEKO…………………………………………………PETITIONER** **AND** **IMMIGRATION OFFICER IN CHARGE KENYATTA** **INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT …………………………….1STRESPONDENT** **DIRECTOR IMMIGRATION AND** **REGISTRATION OF PERSONS……………………….…2NDRESPONDENT** **CABINET SECRETARY INTERIOR &** **COORDINATION OF NATIONAL SECURITY………...3RDRESPONDENT** **THE ATTORNEY GENERAL ………………………….…4THRESPONDENT** **JUDGMENT** **INTRODUCTION** 1. The petitioner moved this court through a Petition dated 6th March 2026 for *inter alia* a declaration his rights and fundamental freedoms were violated as a consequence of the respondents’ actions. The petition seeks to challenge the 3rd respondent’s decision to declare him a prohibited immigrant and the subsequent deportation order. The Petition is supported by his affidavits sworn on 6th March 2026 and 31st March 2026 as well as written submissions dated 31st March 2026 and further submissions dated 8th April 2026. It would appear that the Petition was filed prior to his deportation. **SUMMARY OF THE PETITIONER’S CASE** 1. The petitioner states that he is a Ghanaian national who, prior to his deportation, had been residing in Kenya for over 22 years. He is married to a Kenyan wife, and together they have been blessed with three children. Two of the children are Kenyan citizens and were born on 26th August 2009 and 13th October 2011. 2. He states that he has been severally harassed and intimidated by impostors and faceless characters who have claimed to be agents enforcing various orders which have turned out to be forgeries. For example, on 26th February, 2026, he was arrested by individuals claiming to be immigration officials who were armed with an alleged deportation order, and members of the public intervened. The said persons were arrested and taken to Kilimani police station and the matter was reported to Kilimani police station under OB number 66/16/02/2026. 3. The petitioner states that he was arrested on 5th March 2026 and taken into custody. He was informed that a deportation order had been issued against him on the same date. He was subsequently booked at Muthaiga Police Station and was due for deportation at any time. 4. The petitioner contends that he has no criminal record, no pending criminal charges against him and that he has valid permits and a certificate of permanent residence issued on 18th December 2020 under the provisions of the Kenya Citizenship and Immigration Act, 2011 (KCIA). He avers that he is an astute businessman in Kenya with an interest in real estate and various sectors in Kenya. 5. The petitioner posits that the alleged deportation by the order signed on 5th March 2026 was another attempt to ship him out of the country illegally. It was without due process, malicious and a violation of s 10(2), 27(1), 28, 47(1) and (2), 50, 73 and 129(1) of the Constitution. Further, he was not furnished with any documents to explain the nature and reasons for the deportation, nor was he granted an opportunity to be heard, to review, or to appeal against the decision. 6. In response to the allegations that he was involved in land fraud, he asserts that he has never been involved in any land fraud activities in Kenya or at all. Neither has he been convicted of any crime during his stay in Kenya. 7. Further, he contends that he has never been arrested, summoned or interrogated by either the police or the immigration officials over such allegations or charged before any court of law in Kenya over the same. 8. The petitioner seeks the following reliefs: - 9. A declaration be and is hereby issued that the inclusion of the petitioner’s name in the list or class of prohibited immigrants and the subsequent deportation order is in breach of the petitioner’s constitutional rights and fundamental freedoms under Article 47 of the Constitution. 10. An order of mandamus is hereby issued compelling the respondents to remove the petitioner’s name from the list or class of prohibited immigrants. 11. A declaration is hereby issued that the petitioner is not a prohibited immigrant and is allowed to enter and remain in Kenya as per the visa granted. 12. Declaration that the respondents have violated the constitutional rights of the petitioner and are thereby restrained from further contravention and violation of the Constitution in prohibiting entry into Kenya by the petitioner. 13. An order that the petitioner is entitled to compensation under 23(e) of the Constitution to a tune of Kenya Shillings Five Million (Kshs. 5,000,000/=) payable by the respondents jointly and severally. 14. An order that the respondents shall jointly and severally bear the costs of this petition. 15. Any other relief or orders that the honourable Court shall deem just, fit and appropriate to grant in favour of the petitioner. 16. In his submissions the Petitioner avers that his deportation contravenes Article 39 of the Constitution and sections 33, 34 and 40 of KICA and urges that he should be allowed re-entry into the country since he has a permanent residence permit. He further argues that although the respondents base their actions upon an intelligence report marked top secret shared with the 2nd and 3rd respondents, they did not furnish the court with the said report, disclose its source, nor bring it to his attention before deporting him. 17. Additionally, the petitioner submits that the respondents did not summon him for questioning before making the adverse decision against him. He maintains that he has never been questioned or charged in court for land fraud; therefore, no basis for declaring him a prohibited immigrant and revoking his permanent residence status. 18. The petitioner reiterates that even after persistent enquiries, the respondents failed to inform him that he was a prohibited immigrant. The orders declaring him a prohibited immigrant and for his deportation were both dated 5th March 2026, and he was deported on 6th March 2026 at 10.45 am. He therefore urges that he was never accorded a fair hearing and the entire process was flawed in violation of the Fair Administrative Actions Act and 47 and 50 of the Constitution. 19. The petitioner reiterates that he was in Kenya when the orders declaring him a prohibited immigrant were issued, but he was not informed of the same. He was instead ambushed in traffic, arrested, detained and deported the following day. He thus maintains that due process was not followed and relies on the decision in **Oumarou Moumouni Ali v Director General Kenya Citizens and Foreign Nationals Management Services & 3 others [2020] eKLR**. 20. The petitioner relies on Article 47 of the Constitution and sections 2 and 4 of the Fair Administrative Action Act for the submission that the respondents were obligated to inform him in writing the reasons for his declaration as a member of the prohibited class and the reasons for his deportation. He was also entitled to prior and adequate notice of the nature and reasons for the said declaration and deportation, an opportunity to be heard and to legal representation, and the right to appeal. He relies on the decisions in **Judicial Service Commission v Mbalu Mutava & another [2015] eKLR** and **Kenya Human Rights Commission & another v Non-Governmental Organisations Co-ordination Board & another [2018] eKLR.** 21. The petitioner submits that the manner in which he was bundled out of the country and ordered never to return without reasons was a clear demonstration that the respondents acted in excess of their mandate; it amounted to a violation of his right to dignity guaranteed under section 28 of the Constitution. Additionally, the said actions violated the provisions of Articles 10, 19, 73 and 129 of the Constitution. Reliance is placed on **Bashir Mohamed Jama Abdi v Minister for Immigration and Registration of Persons & 2 others [2014] eKLR.** 22. The petitioner relies on Article 23 (2) of the Constitution and urges that the orders sought in the petition be granted. **SUMMARY OF THE RESPONDENT’S CASE** 1. The respondents opposed the petition through Grounds of opposition and a replying affidavit sworn by Ronnie Akedi and submissions dated 1st April 2026. 2. The respondents state that the petitioner was arrested because there was reason to believe that he was undertaking activities contrary to national interest. That from an intelligence report marked ‘top secret’ and shared with the 2nd and 3rd respondents revealed that the petitioner was involved in land fraud activities. 3. The respondents claim that the petitioner was duly informed and issued with a Prohibited Immigrants notice stating the allegations against him in line with Regulation 36 of the Kenya Citizenship and Immigration Regulations, 2012. That, in the circumstances and devoid of any appeal and/or application for review, the petitioner was declared a Prohibited Immigrant by the 3rd respondent on 5th February 2026. 4. The respondents posit that land fraud by a foreigner presents a matter of grave national interest and is a matter of national security. Further, under section 33(1)(g) and (h) of the KICA, the Cabinet Secretary is empowered to declare any foreigner a prohibited immigrant on the grounds of security or national interest. Therefore, such a declaration was lawful. 5. The respondents urge that all foreigners have a statutory obligation to seek authorisation to enter Kenya, are subject to the National Immigration laws in Kenya, and it is not right. Further, it is the 2nd respondent who has statutory powers to vet and screen applications to enter Kenya and possesses discretionary powers to deny entry if necessary and to revoke entry permits if necessary. 6. The respondents further urge that even if the petitioner was under threat of removal and/ or deportation, any appeal against such an administrative action lay on the Prohibited Immigrants Committee, which makes recommendations to the 3rd respondent for purposes of review. The petitioner thus bypassed the alternative dispute resolution mechanism stipulated under section 33(8) of the KCIA, and this court’s jurisdiction is improperly invoked. The Petition runs afoul of the doctrine of Exhaustion. 7. The respondents rely on the decisions in **Geoffrey Muthinja Kabiru & another v Samuel Munga Henry & 1756 others [2015] KECA 304 (KLR)**; **Benard Murage v Fine Serve Africa Limited & 3 others [2015] eKLR** and **KKB v SCM & 5 others [2022] KEHC 289 (KLR)** and reiterate that the petition has not utilised the dispute resolution mechanisms stipulated under section 33 (8) of KCIA. That by dint of section 57(2) of the said Act, the High Court is clothed with appellate jurisdiction. 8. The respondents cite the decision in **Anarita Karimi Njeru v Republic [1979] eKLR; Mumo Matemo v Trusted Society of Human Rights Alliance [2013] eKLR** and ***CNM v WMG* [2018] KEHC 8434 (KLR)** for the contention that the petition fails to meet the threshold for a constitutional petition. 9. The respondents maintain that the 3rd respondent acted within its statutory mandate in declaring the petitioner a prohibited immigrant on justified grounds relating to national security. The petitioner was issued with the requisite notice and no constitutional violation has been established. Further, the credibility of the petitioner and the evidence submitted in support of his petition are questionable. 10. According to the respondents, the petitioner admits in his further affidavit that he was deported on 6th March 2026 and he annexed a boarding pass to this effect, yet the further affidavit is sworn in Nairobi by himself on 31st March 2026. They argue that a prohibited immigrant cannot re-enter the Country without an appeal and removal from the list of prohibited immigrants. Therefore, he either gained re-entry through illegal means or is misleading the Court about the facts of this matter, thereby lending credence to the State's apprehension that he is a threat to national security. They urge that the Petition be dismissed with costs awarded to the respondents. **ANALYSIS AND DETERMINATION** 1. Having considered the pleadings and submissions filed herein, I frame the following as the Constitutional issues for determination 2. Whether the doctrine of exhaustion bars the Court from entertaining the Petition? 3. Whether the declaration of the Petitioner as a prohibited immigrant and the subsequent deportation infringed the Petitioner’s constitutional rights? 4. Whether the relief sought should be granted? ***a) Whether the doctrine of exhaustion bars the Court from entertaining the Petition?*** 1. The Respondent submits that the Petitioner did not first pursue the statutory remedies available under the KCIA, as required by the doctrine of exhaustion and relies on the decision in **Speaker of the National Assembly v Karume [1992] KECA 42 (KLR)**. It is therefore argued that the Petition is incompetent and improperly before this Court. 2. The doctrine of exhaustion was enunciated in **William Odhiambo Ramogi & 3 others v Attorney General & 4 others; Muslims for Human Rights & 2 others (Interested Parties) [2020] eKLR** thus **The question of exhaustion of administrative remedies arises when a litigant, aggrieved by an agency's action, seeks redress from a Court of law on an action without pursuing available remedies before the agency itself. The exhaustion doctrine serves the purpose of ensuring that there is a postponement of judicial consideration of matters to ensure that a party is, first of all, diligent in the protection of his own interest within the mechanisms in place for resolution outside the Courts. This encourages alternative dispute resolution mechanisms in line with Article 159 of the Constitution.** 1. However, as the Court observed in **Wahome v Public Health Officers & Technicians Council & Another [2023] KEHC 2680 (KLR**), the doctrine of exhaustion is not absolute. The Court recognised that there exist well‑established exceptions, one of which arises where a petitioner alleges the violation or threatened violation of constitutionally safeguarded rights or seeks the Court’s intervention on questions of constitutional interpretation. In such circumstances, statutory provisions purporting to limit or oust the jurisdiction of the High Court must be construed restrictively, for the Constitution remains the supreme law and cannot be subordinated to statutory dispute‑resolution mechanisms. 2. I am satisfied that the matter properly falls within the jurisdiction of this Court. The gravamen of the Petition is the decision of the Cabinet Secretary to designate the Petitioner a prohibited immigrant and the subsequent act of deportation. These are executive actions undertaken pursuant to constitutional and statutory powers, and the Petitioner challenges their legality and constitutionality. Of importance is the allegation by the Petitioner that the said actions resulted in a violation of his rights. 3. As the Court of Appeal observed in **Kariuki v Attorney General [2014] KECA 713 (KLR)**, while interpreting Article 84(1) of the retired constitution of Kenya, the right of a party to approach the court for the enforcement of guaranteed rights was not dependent on whether the applicant had or did not have other remedies. The Court cited with approval the decision of the Supreme Court of India in **Kharak Singh v State of Uttah Pradesh (1963) AIR 1295** where the court stated- **It is wholly erroneous to assume that before the jurisdiction of this Court under Art. 32 could be invoked the applicant must either establish that he has no other remedy adequate or otherwise or that he has exhausted such remedies as the law affords and has yet not obtained proper redress, for when once it is proved to the satisfaction of this court that by State action the fundamental right of a petitioner under Art. 32 has been infringed, it is not only the right but the duty of this Court to afford relief to him by passing appropriate orders in that behalf**. 1. On account of the foregoing I find that the Petition is properly before the Court and will be heard on its merits. ***Whether the declaration of the Petitioner as a prohibited immigrant and the subsequent deportation infringed the Petitioner’s constitutional rights?*** 1. The fact that the Petitioner has been resident in the Country and has been vested with Permanent Residence Status has not been denied. Neither is the fact that he has a Kenyan wife and that together they have three children, two of whom were born in Kenya. The respondent contends that in designating the Petitioner as a prohibited immigrant and deporting him, the 3rd respondent was acting in the national interest and was exercising his statutory mandate. 2. It is now well established that upon promulgation of the Constitution of Kenya of 2010, there is now a paradigm shift in the manner that executive power is exercised and experienced as Article 10 (1) of the Constitution demands that- **The national values and principles of governance in this Article bind all state organs, State officers, public officers whenever any of them-** **(a) applies or interprets the constitution** **(b) enacts, applies or interprets any law or** **(c) makes or implements public policy decisions** 1. The Cabinet Secretary, in exercising powers under the Kenya Citizenship and Immigration Act, including the designation of a person as a prohibited immigrant and the issuance of a deportation order, is therefore constitutionally obligated to adhere to the national values and principles of governance enumerated in Article 10. These include the rule of law, human dignity, equity, social justice, inclusiveness, equality, human rights, non‑discrimination, good governance, integrity, transparency and accountability. 2. The exercise of these powers is not insulated from constitutional scrutiny. In **Republic v County Government of Mombasa Ex-parte Outdoor Advertising Association of Kenya [2014] eKLR** the Court emphasised- **There can never be public interest in breach of the law, and the decision of the respondent is indefensible on public interest because public interest must accord to the constitution and the law as the rule of law is one of the national values of the constitution under Article 10 of the Constitution. Moreover, the defence of public interest ought to have been considered in a forum where in accordance with the law, the ex parte applicant members were granted an opportunity to be heard. There cannot be public interest consistently with the rule of law in not affording a hearing to a person likely to be affected by a judicial or quasi-judicial decision** 1. Similarly, in **Republic V Principal Immigration Officer Ministry Of Immigration & Registration Of Persons Ex-Parte Devaraj Malarmesai Bagavan & Another [2012]eKLR**, the Court emphasised that executive powers exercised under the KCIA must comply with the Constitution, particularly the requirements of fair administrative action and right to fair hearing. The Court underscored that the values in Article 10 are binding and enforceable, not aspirational. 2. These decisions affirm that the Cabinet Secretary’s powers under the KCIA are not absolute; they are constitutionally prescribed. Any decision to designate a person a prohibited immigrant or to deport must therefore be: (1) Transparent, with reasons that can withstand judicial scrutiny (2) Accountable, demonstrating adherence to statutory and constitutional standards (3) Respectful of human rights, including the right to fair administrative action under Article 47 (4) Consistent with the rule of law, avoiding arbitrariness or abuse of power 1. Article 47 of the Constitution of Kenya provides- **(1) Every person has the right to administrative action that is expeditious, efficient, lawful, reasonable and procedurally fair;** **(2) If a right or fundamental freedom of a person has been or is likely to be adversely affected by administrative action, the person has the right to be given written reasons for the action.** 1. In **Gegic v National Police Service Commission & 4 others [2026] KEHC (KLR)** (paragraphs 105, 108 and 109) the Aburili J. stated: - **However, on procedural fairness, the 2nd, 3rd and 4th respondents were expected, at the bare minimum, to adhere to the provisions of section 4(3) and (4) of the Fair Administrative Actions Act by:** 1. **Notifying the petitioner of the intention to issue the impugned declaration;** 2. **According the petitioner an opportunity to be heard and to make representations in that regard;** 3. **Informing him of the right to a review or internal appeal against an administrative decision, where applicable;** 4. **Informing him of the right to legal representation;** 5. **Informing him of the right to cross-examine where applicable;** 6. **Availing the information, materials and evidence to be relied upon in making the impugned declaration.** 7. The Respondent contends that the impugned decision was informed by revelations in a confidential report alleging that the Petitioner had engaged in fraudulent land transactions. However, there is no evidence that the Petitioner was afforded an opportunity to respond to these allegations, nor was he notified of his right to appeal the declaration prior to his deportation. The conduct of the Cabinet Secretary and the process culminating in the Petitioner’s removal from the country fall short of the constitutional demands of Articles 10 and 47. The resulting decision is therefore constitutionally infirm and liable to be set aside. 8. The Petitioner enjoyed the status of a permanent resident having been issued with a certificate on 18th December 2020. Under Section 38 of the KCIA permanent residents have the following rights and obligations- 1. **the right to enter and remain in Kenya, subject to the provisions of this Act;** 2. **the right to be employed in Kenya;** 3. **the right to attend educational facilities;** 4. **right to own property legally in Kenya;** 5. **the right to move and settle anywhere in Kenya;** 6. **the right to access and enjoy social services and facilities in Kenya;** 7. **comply with residency obligation as may be prescribed;** 8. **be provided with a permanent residence certificate as prescribed under the regulations; and** 9. **comply with such other conditions as shall be imposed under the regulations.** 9. The vesting of these rights, though not absolute, creates a legitimate expectation that where the authority responsible for conferring them seeks to divest or interfere with their enjoyment, it must do so in a manner consistent with the demands of fair administrative action. At the very minimum, this entails affording the affected individual an opportunity to be heard before any adverse decision is taken. This procedural safeguard is not a mere technicality; it is a constitutional imperative flowing from Articles 47 and 50, designed to ensure that the exercise of public power remains transparent, accountable, and respectful of individual rights. 10. The facts in the instant case are almost on all fours as those in the **Oumarou Moumouni Ali v Director General Kenya Citizens and Foreign Nationals Management Services & 3 others [2020] KEHC 9787 (KLR)** on the necessity of administrative actions and decision making to comply with the constitutional edicts of fair administrative action, the Hon. Makau J stated- **It is clear, in my interpretation of the law, that I have preferred the more expansive approach which requires decisions by the Executive, which expose the individual to loss of his fundament rights, to be subjected to the test of legality as superintended and enforced by the High Court… I must take judicial notice that the precious ingenuity of the common law and its jurisprudence and philosophy, where matters of public law are concerned, is that good governance has judicialism as its partner, and that there are to be no decisions taken by public bodies which derogate from the private rights of individuals where the views of such individuals are entirely disregarded. The richness of the safeguards of a written Constitution, such as that of Kenya, is assured by the philosophy and practices of the common law as maintained by the Judiciary….** **The Respondents in exercise of their functions as state officers are bound by provisions of 10 of the Constitution thus the National Values and Principles of Governance which includes the rule of law, democracy, human dignity, equity, social justice, human rights, non-discrimination and protection of the marginalized, transparency and accountability. It is not for them to urge that they should be accorded the anatomy vested in them by statute without unnecessary intervention of the Court when it is clear such autonomy has been abused by issuing deportation order, failing to serve the same and failing to accord the Petitioner the right to be heard. In view of the above, I find that the due process was not followed in the Petitioner’s deportation. I find that it would be contrary to law, that the Respondents should have the Petitioner, who has been residing in Kenya for 10 years, a family man with Kenyan wife and 2 Kenyan children, doing business in this country and a consul of Niger and an employer of over 100 people be deported without being served with deportation order and being given an opportunity to be heard. This very act goes against the dictates of our constitution and International Law and should not be allowed at all.** 1. Similarly, in **Bashir Mohamed Jame Abdi and Minister for Immigration & Others** [2014] Eklr Justice I. Lenaola (as he then was) held that: **By denying the subject Abdi Bashir Mohamed alias Cabdiqani Bashir Mohamed entry into Kenya and deporting him to the UK without a formal process or service on him with any written allegations, reasons or order/s and without according him a hearing, to contact his family or counsel, to appeal against the order of denial of entry into Kenya and deportation to the UK was a violation of the subject’s constitutional rights of a citizen under 123, his fundament rights and freedoms as to equal treatment and equal action/justice, to deprivation of the society and recognition of his family to a fair hearing under s, 27(1), 39, 45(1), 47 and 50(1) of the Constitution*.*** 1. The Petitioner herein is married to a Kenyan; they have 3 children, two of whom were born in Kenya. His deportation has had the effect of separating him from his family and children. He was stripped of his permanent residency in a process that blatantly contravened the provisions of Article 47 of the Constitution and violated his constitutionally guaranteed rights including non derogable rights under Articles 25, the right to dignity under Article 28, the right to freedom and security of the person under Article 29, the right to freedom of movement and residence under Article 39, the right to property under Article 40, the right to fair administrative action under Article 47, and the right to a fair hearing under Article 50. 2. Article 23 of the Constitution entrusts the High Court with the solemn responsibility of safeguarding and enforcing the Bill of Rights. That authority operates along two distinct but complementary dimensions. First, the Court is empowered to hear and determine applications alleging the denial, violation, infringement of, or threat to, a fundamental right or freedom. Second, where such a claim is established, the Court is authorized to fashion “appropriate relief”, a term the Constitution deliberately casts in broad terms. Such relief may include a declaration of rights, injunctive or conservatory orders, a declaration of invalidity of any law that violates or threatens rights and cannot be justified under Article 24, an award of compensation, and orders of judicial review. These remedial powers are not ornamental; they are the tools through which the Court gives real and practical meaning to the guarantees enshrined in the Bill of Rights. 3. In **Kanu (Suing on behalf of and Representing the Subject Nwannekaenvi Nnamdi Kenny Okwu-Kanu) v Cabinet Secretary, Ministry of Interior and Coordination of National Government & 4 others [2025] KEHC 8967 (KLR)** the Court summarised the obligation thus- **Once the court finds that rights and fundamental freedoms have been violated, it has an obligation to grant an appropriate relief as required by article 23(3) of the Constitution. In cases of violation of the Constitution and fundamental freedoms, the court must consider whether an award damages as compensation towards the violation is the appropriate remedy. The state may be required to pay damages for making decisions that are plainly unconstitutional, are in bad faith or an abuse of power…** **In determining whether damages are an appropriate and just remedy, the court has to consider whether a constitutional right has been breached; whether damages would fulfil one or more of the related functions of compensation, that is; vindicating the right, or deterring future breaches and whether there is alternative remedy that would be effective than an award of damages, and the appropriate quantum of damages. In this petition, rights and fundamental freedoms having been violated, it was not demonstrated that there would be another effective remedy than an award of damages** 1. Similarly, in the current case, I am persuaded that in addition to the other reliefs, this is a proper case for the award of damages. Accordingly, the Petition succeeds with the following orders- 1. An order of Certiorari is hereby issued, and the declaration of the Cabinet Secretary, Interior and National Administration, made on the 5th February 2026, declaring the Petitioner a prohibited immigrant and the subsequent deportation order, are hereby removed into this Court for purposes of quashing and are hereby quashed. 2. An Order of Mandamus hereby issues compelling the Cabinet Secretary Interior and National Administration to remove the Petitioner’s name from the list of prohibited immigrants forthwith upon service of this order and to notify the Petitioner of compliance in writing. 3. An order of Prohibition hereby issues barring the 3rd respondent from cancelling the Petitioner’s Certificate of Permanent Residence Ref No IMM/ PR/0002700 issued on 18th December 2020 except in accordance with the law. 4. An Order of Prohibition hereby issues prohibiting the Respondents from preventing the Petitioner from returning to and remaining in the Republic of Kenya without justifiable cause and contrary to and without following due process. 5. The Petitioner is hereby awarded the sum of Kshs 2 million as compensation for the violation of his rights as guaranteed under Articles 28, 39, 47 and 50 of the Constitution of Kenya payable by the 3rd respondent 6. The 3rd Respondent shall bear costs of the Petition. **SIGNED, DATED AND DELIVERED VIRTUALLY AT NAIROBI THIS 18TH DAY OF JUNE, 2026.** **P .M NYAUNDI** **JUDGE** **In the Presence of** Fardosa Court Assistant Bundi for Petitioner Ms. Leitoro for Respondent