[2019] KEHC 7413 (KLR)

[2019] KEHC 7413 (KLR)

The court found that the Petitioners were arrested, detained for periods exceeding the lawful limit, and subjected to torture and inhuman treatment by agents of the State, in violation of their constitutional rights under both the repealed and current Constitution. The Respondent failed to rebut the Petitioners'...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2019] KEHC 7413 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: Taiga Job Wanyanja & 16 Others; Respondent: The Attorney General
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Bungoma
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Petition 5 & 6 – 21 of 2017
Procedural Posture
Constitutional Petition / Judgment
Outcome
Petition allowed. Judgment entered for Petitioners against Respondent.
Legal Topics
Fundamental Rights Violation, Torture and Inhuman Treatment, Limitation of Actions, State Liability, Damages for Rights Violation
Source Language
en
Constitutional Law Tort Law Fundamental Rights Violation Torture and Inhuman Treatment Limitation of Actions State Liability Damages for Rights Violation

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 4 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 17
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Taiga Job Wanyanja & 16 Others

Applicant

The Attorney General

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Constitutional Petition / Judgment

  1. 1 Whether the Petitioners' fundamental rights and freedoms were violated by the Respondent's agents.
  2. 2 Whether the Petitioners are entitled to damages for the alleged violations.
  3. 3 Whether the delay in filing the petitions bars the claims due to limitation of actions.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the Petitioners were arrested, detained for periods exceeding the lawful limit, and subjected to torture and inhuman treatment by agents of the State, in violation of their constitutional rights under both the repealed and current Constitution. The Respondent failed to rebut the Petitioners' affidavit evidence, and the delay in filing was justified by the prevailing political circumstances and the nature of the violations. The court held that there is no limitation period for constitutional petitions alleging violation of fundamental rights unless the delay is unreasonable and prejudicial. The Petitioners were entitled to declarations of violation and monetary...

Court Disposition

Petition allowed. Judgment entered for Petitioners against Respondent.

Orders

  • A declaration is issued that each Petitioner's fundamental rights and freedom from torture, degrading and inhuman treatment were violated by police and/or state agents.
  • A declaration is issued that the Petitioners are entitled to damages for violation of their fundamental rights.