[2012] KEHC 5512 (KLR)

[2012] KEHC 5512 (KLR)

The court found that the petitioner failed to demonstrate a violation of her right to freedom of expression under Article 33(1)(a) by the respondent.s refusal to undergo a DNA test. The court held that compelling the respondent to provide a DNA sample would infringe his rights to bodily integrity and privacy, which are also protected under the Bill of Rights. The petitioner did not clearly identify any other constitutional right that would override the respondent.s rights or justify the order sought. The petition was therefore struck out for lack of specificity and failure to establish a constitutional violation.

Citation
[2012] KEHC 5512 (KLR)
Parties
Petitioner: S.W.M; Respondent: G.M.K
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Commercial Courts)
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Judgment Date
5 October 2012
Case Number
Petition 235 of 2011
Procedural Posture
Constitutional Petition / Judgment
Outcome
petition dismissed
Legal Topics
Freedom of Expression, Bodily Integrity, Right to Privacy, Paternity Disputes
Source Language
English
Constitutional Law Family and Children Freedom of Expression Bodily Integrity Right to Privacy Paternity Disputes

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 3 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

S.W.M

Petitioner

G.M.K

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Constitutional Petition / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the petitioner.s right to freedom of expression under Article 33(1)(a) of the Constitution is violated by the respondent.s refusal to undergo a DNA test.
  2. 2 Whether the petitioner has demonstrated a violation of any other fundamental right under the Bill of Rights warranting a court order for a DNA test.
  3. 3 Whether ordering a DNA test would unjustifiably infringe the respondent.s rights to bodily integrity and privacy.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the petitioner failed to demonstrate a violation of her right to freedom of expression under Article 33(1)(a) by the respondent.s refusal to undergo a DNA test. The court held that compelling the respondent to provide a DNA sample would infringe his rights to bodily integrity and privacy, which are also protected under the Bill of Rights. The petitioner did not clearly identify any other constitutional right that would override the respondent.s rights or justify the order sought. The petition was therefore struck out for lack of specificity and failure to establish a constitutional violation.

Court Disposition

petition dismissed

Orders

  • The petition is struck out.
  • No order as to costs.