[2020] KEHC 9481 (KLR)

[2020] KEHC 9481 (KLR)

The court found that the applicant had established a prima facie case with a likelihood of success and demonstrated that unless ex parte orders were granted, members of the public would suffer prejudice. The court held that the enforcement of the Public Order (State Curfew) Order 2020 must be conducted in accordance...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2020] KEHC 9481 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: Law Society of Kenya; Respondent: Hillary Mutyambai, Inspector General, National Police Service; Respondent: Fred Matiangi, Cabinet Secretary for Interior and Coordination of National Government; Respondent: Attorney General; Respondent: The Hon. Chief Justice; Respondent: Mutahi Kagwe, Cabinet Secretary for Health
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Petition 120 of 2020
Procedural Posture
Constitutional Petition / Interlocutory Orders (ex Parte)
Outcome
Interim conservatory orders granted ex parte; directions issued for inter partes hearing.
Legal Topics
State Curfew Orders, Police Conduct, Freedom of Press, Public Order Management
Source Language
en
Constitutional Law Administrative Law State Curfew Orders Police Conduct Freedom of Press Public Order Management

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Downloadable case file Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Law Society of Kenya

Applicant

Hillary Mutyambai, Inspector General, National Police Service

Respondent

Fred Matiangi, Cabinet Secretary for Interior and Coordination of National Government

Respondent

Attorney General

Respondent

The Hon. Chief Justice

Respondent

Mutahi Kagwe, Cabinet Secretary for Health

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Constitutional Petition / Interlocutory Orders (ex Parte)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the enforcement of the Public Order (State Curfew) Order 2020 by the police has violated constitutional rights.
  2. 2 Whether interim orders should be granted to restrain the use of unreasonable force and interference with media coverage during curfew enforcement.
  3. 3 Whether the Inspector General should be compelled to publicize guidelines on police conduct during curfew enforcement.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicant had established a prima facie case with a likelihood of success and demonstrated that unless ex parte orders were granted, members of the public would suffer prejudice. The court held that the enforcement of the Public Order (State Curfew) Order 2020 must be conducted in accordance with the Constitution, and that the use of unreasonable force and interference with media coverage are not permissible. Accordingly, the court issued interim orders compelling the Inspector General to publicize guidelines on police conduct, prohibiting the use of unreasonable force, and restraining interference with media coverage during curfew enforcement.

Court Disposition

Interim conservatory orders granted ex parte; directions issued for inter partes hearing.

Orders

  • The Inspector General is compelled to publicize, within 48 hours, guidelines on police conduct during curfew enforcement in newspapers of national circulation and file them in court.
  • The Inspector General is prohibited from using unreasonable force in enforcing the curfew order.