Mutai & 9 others v Attorney General (Civil Appeal 95 of 2016) [2019] KECA 125 (KLR) (28 November 2019) (Judgment)

Facts

a constitutional petition was filed 30 years after the cause of action arose

Issues

1. whether a constitutional petition would be defeated by the doctrine of laches if the action was filed after an unexpected delay
2. what was the effect of undue delay in filing a constitutional petition
3. whether a trial court in exercise of its discretion could question evidence that had not been challenged
4. whether the weight of oral evidence was superior to the weight of affidavit evidence
5. whether psychological and mental torture needed to be proved by medical documents
6. whether it was necessary to provide medical evidence for injuries suffered
7. whether public interest outweighed the enforcement and protection of fundamental rights and freedoms
8. whether the use of the word 'may' in section 46(1) of the Prisons Act connoted a discretion to give or not to give remission
9. whether the denial of remission without justification meant that one was unlawfully deprived of freedom
10. whether a court could determine if one's right to fair trial was violated without the proceedings of the trial court
11. whether an action of unfair dismissal could be determined in a constitutional petition as opposed to under a claim under the Employment Act

Reasoning

the court considered the doctrine of laches and its application to constitutional petitions, and concluded that the petition was not barred by the doctrine of laches due to the unexpected delay

Outcome

affirmed