[2011] KEHC 4272 (KLR)

[2011] KEHC 4272 (KLR)

The court held that it had jurisdiction to hear the petition under section 84(1) of the repealed Constitution, as the petitioner alleged contravention of fundamental rights. While fundamental rights are primarily enforceable against the State, the court recognized the emerging trend of horizontal application in exceptional cases, particularly where non-State actors wield significant power. The court found that the respondent, as President, orchestrated the petitioner's unlawful detention for personal and commercial gain, and that the subsequent sale of company properties during the petitioner's detention deprived him of his property rights. The respondent's failure to file a substantive...

Citation
[2011] KEHC 4272 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: Mwangi Stephen Muriithi; Respondent: Hon. Daniel Toroitich Arap Moi E.G.H.; Respondent: Raymark Limited
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Judgment Date
6 April 2011
Case Number
Constitutional Petition 625 of 2009
Procedural Posture
Constitutional Petition / Judgment
Outcome
Petition allowed with costs to the petitioner.
Legal Topics
Fundamental Rights Enforcement, Unlawful Detention, Deprivation of Property, Company Shareholder Rights, Horizontal Application of Rights, Limitation of Actions
Source Language
English
Constitutional Law Land and Property Commercial and Corporate Fundamental Rights Enforcement Unlawful Detention Deprivation of Property Company Shareholder Rights Horizontal Application of Rights +1 more

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 6 Authorities cited 23 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mwangi Stephen Muriithi

Applicant

Hon. Daniel Toroitich Arap Moi E.G.H.

Respondent

Raymark Limited

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Constitutional Petition / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the High Court had jurisdiction to entertain the petition alleging contravention of fundamental rights by a private individual.
  2. 2 Whether fundamental rights under the repealed Constitution applied horizontally against non-State actors.
  3. 3 Whether the petitioner's detention was unlawful and attributable to the respondent.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that it had jurisdiction to hear the petition under section 84(1) of the repealed Constitution, as the petitioner alleged contravention of fundamental rights. While fundamental rights are primarily enforceable against the State, the court recognized the emerging trend of horizontal application in exceptional cases, particularly where non-State actors wield significant power. The court found that the respondent, as President, orchestrated the petitioner's unlawful detention for personal and commercial gain, and that the subsequent sale of company properties during the petitioner's detention deprived him of his property rights. The respondent's failure to file a substantive...

Court Disposition

Petition allowed with costs to the petitioner.

Orders

  • The respondent shall pay the petitioner KES 50,000,000 as punitive damages for unlawful detention and violation of fundamental rights.
  • The respondent shall pay the petitioner KES 80,161,720 as compensation for his share of the disposed properties.