[2012] KEHC 5425 (KLR)

[2012] KEHC 5425 (KLR)

The court held that Section 33 of the Kenya National Commission on Human Rights Act does not oust the High Court's supervisory jurisdiction, as immunity only applies to acts done in good faith and within the Act's mandate. The Commission's report, which named the applicant as an alleged planner, financier, and perpetrator of post-election violence, constituted a decision adverse to the applicant and was thus amenable to judicial review. However, the court found that the applicant was not entitled to strict observance of the rules of natural justice in the prevailing circumstances, given the public interest and security concerns at the time of the Commission's investigations. The applicant...

Citation
[2012] KEHC 5425 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: Hon. William Ruto; Respondent: Kenya National Commission on Human Rights
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Judgment Date
4 May 2012
Case Number
Judicial Review 647 of 2009
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Judgment
Outcome
Application dismissed.
Legal Topics
Judicial Review Remedies, Natural Justice, Public Body Immunity, Fair Hearing Rights, Statutory Mandate, Limitation Periods
Source Language
English
Administrative Law Constitutional Law Judicial Review Remedies Natural Justice Public Body Immunity Fair Hearing Rights Statutory Mandate Limitation Periods

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Hon. William Ruto

Applicant

Kenya National Commission on Human Rights

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Section 33 of the Kenya National Commission on Human Rights Act ousts the High Court's supervisory jurisdiction.
  2. 2 Whether the Commission's report amounts to a decision amenable to judicial review.
  3. 3 Whether the application is barred by the six months limitation period for certiorari.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that Section 33 of the Kenya National Commission on Human Rights Act does not oust the High Court's supervisory jurisdiction, as immunity only applies to acts done in good faith and within the Act's mandate. The Commission's report, which named the applicant as an alleged planner, financier, and perpetrator of post-election violence, constituted a decision adverse to the applicant and was thus amenable to judicial review. However, the court found that the applicant was not entitled to strict observance of the rules of natural justice in the prevailing circumstances, given the public interest and security concerns at the time of the Commission's investigations. The applicant...

Court Disposition

Application dismissed.

Orders

  • The application dated 30th November, 2009 is dismissed.
  • No order as to costs.