https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/9853

Akhala & 28 others v Inspector General of the National Police Services & 8 others (Petition E015 of 2024) [2026] KEHC 9853 (KLR) (7 July 2026) (Ruling) Neutral citation: [2026] KEHC 9853 (KLR) Republic of Kenya In the High Court at Kisumu Petition E015 of 2024 A Mabeya, J July 7, 2026 IN THE MATTER OF VIOLATION OF ARTICLES 1, 2(1), 3(1). 10, 19,20, 21, 22,23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 35, 37, 47, 48, 49, 50, 53, 165(3), 244, 258 & 259 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF KENYA 2010 AND IN THE MATTER OF VIOLATION OF SECTIONS 8(1), 10(1) & 2, 24, 49, 61, 72, 95 AND THE SIXTH SCHEDULE OF THE NATIONAL POLICE SERVICE ACT CAP 84 OF THE LAWS OF KENYA AND IN THE MATTER OF VIOLATION OF CHAPTERS 31, 43, 47, 58 & 69 OF THE NATIONAL POLICE SERVICE STANDING ORDERS & THE UNCONSTITUTIONALITY OF SECTIONS 1(B), (C), (D) & 2 (C)(I) & (II) OF THE CHAPTER 47 OF THE NATIONAL POLICE SERVICE STANDING ORDERS AND IN THE MATTER OF VIOLATION OF SECTIONS 5, 6, 7, 24 AND 25 OF THE INDEPENDENT POLICING AND OVERSIGHT AUTHORITY ACT CAP 86 OF THE LAWS OF KENYA AND IN THE MATTER OF VIOLATION OF SECTIONS 19, 23, 24, 25, 26 & 27 OF THE VICTIM PROTECTION ACT, CAP 79A OF THE LAWS OF KENYA AND IN THE MATTER OF VIOLATION OF SECTIONS 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 & 17 OF THE PREVENTION OF TORTURE ACT, CAP 88 LAWS OF KENYA Between John Akhala 1st Petitioner Everlyn Achungo Akhala 2nd Petitioner Charles Kiwendo 3rd Petitioner Edith Adhiambo Ooro 4th Petitioner Joseph Anyama 5th Petitioner Nerisha Juma Ouma 6th Petitioner Benson Onyango Owaa 7th Petitioner Robert Ouko Odongo 8th Petitioner Linda Aol 9th Petitioner Mao (guardian To Ma) 10th Petitioner Brighton Onyango Ochieng 11th Petitioner Clinton Otieno Aka Bill Clinton Otieno 12th Petitioner Joseph Odhiambo Oywer 13th Petitioner David Omondi Okoth 14th Petitioner Harbarty Muyeshi 15th Petitioner Shalmon Otieno Odoyo 16th Petitioner Steve Biko Obongo 17th Petitioner Evans Owino Aila 18th Petitioner Kenneth Omondi Owiti 19th Petitioner Daniel Ouma Obare 20th Petitioner Aao (guardian To Roo) 21st Petitioner Daniel Ochanda Owiti 22nd Petitioner Karilus Akach Raphael 23rd Petitioner Christopher Ototo Odero 24th Petitioner Dennis Ochieng 25th Petitioner Brian Obiero 26th Petitioner Joseph Obala Ongili 27th Petitioner Amos Oduor Otengo 28th Petitioner Dorcas Akinyi Oluoch 29th Petitioner and Inspector General Of The National Police Services 1st Respondent The National Police Service 2nd Respondent Attorney General 3rd Respondent Independent Policing Oversight Authority 4th Respondent and International Justice Mission 1st Interested Party Kenya National CommissionOn Human Rights 2nd Interested Party Katiba Institute 3rd Interested Party Amnesty International 4th Interested Party Law Society Of Kenya 5th Interested Party Ruling 1.I have considered the representations by the Counsels. The Order of 25/3/2026 was categorical. The Court directed the 1st, 2nd and 3rd respondent to prepare, develop and publish within 90 days, Public Order Management Regulations to regulate and manage public demonstrations and picketing in exercise of the right under Article 37 of the Constitution of Kenya. 2.That directive was obtained from what the Court had observed first hand in the Petition. For long, many have died and been maimed while either trying to exercise that right to demonstrate and picket or while being innocent bystanders. One death is too many considering the history of the conduct of the 1st respondent and the officers of the 2nd respondent. 3.90 days expired on 24/6/2026. Today is 13 days over that period. There is nothing on record to show that the said directive was complied with. Learned Counsel Mr. Kajo has admitted as such. He requests for a few days to explain. If anything was being done and the 1st to 3rd respondent felt they would be unable to comply with the directive, nothing would have been easier than to file for extension of time before today. 4.This is blatant disobedience of a clear Court order. One disobedience is one too many. It is an affront to the rule of law. It is a breach of Article 10 of the Constitution. Court orders are not suggestions to be second guessed. There are processes of challenging orders that anyone feels is onerous. 5.The continued vacuum is dangerous. It was expected that the members of the 2nd respondent would not operate in a vacuum or in a lacunae where it is unknown how they are to meet those desirous to exercise their right under Article 37 of the Constitution of Kenya. That right is not a flowerly provision in our primary law. For now, it is not known or clear how the officers of the 2nd respondent are to operate during picketing. The 1st to 3rd respondent would not be permitted to operate as if this country has no laws. They are under the law. They must obey court orders. 6.Accordingly, since there is no reason on record why the 1st to 3rd respondents disobeyed the order of 25/3/2026, they are hereby summoned to appear before Court and show cause why action should not be taken against them for the contempt. Appearance to be on 21/7/2026 at 9.00am without fail.It is so ordered. DATED AND DELIVERED AT KISUMU THIS 7TH DAY OF JULY, 2026.A. MABEYA, FCI ArbJUDGE