SheriaNet for Android — search and read Kenyan case law from your phone, offline.
Join the beta →

Japhet Muroko v Attorney General & 4 others [2016] KEHC 7295 (KLR)

[2016] KEHC 7295 (KLR) High Court of Kenya
Read PDF
Court
High Court of Kenya
Case number
7295
Citation
[2016] KEHC 7295 (KLR)
Decided
28 January 2016
AI Summary Beta Machine-generated — may contain errors. Not legal advice.
TypeConstitutional PetitionPostureAppeal from an original trialCoramMUMBI NGUGI
Holding

The court dismissed the petition, finding that the petitioner failed to demonstrate how the use of the devices violates the Constitution or any other law.

Facts

The petitioner, Japhet Muroko, sought an injunction against the use of alcohol breathalyzer and hand-held speed gun used by the 3rd, 4th, and 5th Respondents. He claimed these devices do not meet constitutional standards and violate Articles 2, 46, and 227 of the Constitution.

Issues

  1. Whether the alcohol breathalyzer and hand-held speed gun used by the Respondents meet constitutional standards.
  2. Whether the acquisition of the breathalyzer was done in accordance with Article 227 of the Constitution.

Reasoning

The court recognized the principles established in constitutional petitions but found the petitioner's claims lacking in precision and basis. The court also noted that the issues had been previously addressed in a different case.

Outcome

Dismissed

Authorities cited

Legislation (4)
  • Public Procurement and Disposal Act
  • Traffic Act (Chapter 403 Laws of Kenya)
  • Standard Act
  • International Organization of Legal Metrology Rules and regulations
Cases cited (5)
  • Anarita Karimi Njeru vs Republic
  • Richard Ogendo case
  • Speaker of National Assembly vs Njenga Karume
  • Kipkalya Kones vs Republic
  • Francis Gitau Parsimei & 2 Others vs National Alliance Party
Experimental AI summary generated by a language model, not a lawyer. It may contain errors or omissions and must not be relied on for legal decisions — the full judgment below is the authoritative source.
Full judgment 0.2 MB · PDF

Loading judgment…

Cite this case


        
        
      

Share this case