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

Okuta & another v Attorney General & 2 others (Petition 397 of 2016) [2017] KEHC 8382 (KLR) (Constitutional and Human Rights) (6 February 2017) (Judgment)

[2017] KEHC 8382 (KLR) High Court of Kenya
Read PDF
Court
High Court of Kenya
Case number
8382
Citation
[2017] KEHC 8382 (KLR)
Decided
6 February 2017
AI Summary Beta Machine-generated — may contain errors. Not legal advice.
TypeConstitutionalPostureAppeal from a lower court decisionCoramCrennan, Dickson, French, Gajendragadkar, Gubbay
Holding

The court held that section 194 of the Penal Code is unconstitutional and invalid.

Facts

The petitioners seek a declaration that section 194 of the Penal Code is unconstitutional and invalid, and that any continued enforcement of the section by the Second Respondent against them would be unconstitutional.

Issues

  1. The constitutionality of the criminal defamation law in section 194 of the Penal Code.
  2. Whether the law unjustly violates the freedom of expression by imposing sanctions on the civil wrong of defamation.

Reasoning

The court applied the Lange test to determine if the law effectively burdens freedom of communication about government or political matters and if it is reasonably appropriate and adapted to serve a legitimate end.

Outcome

The court declared section 194 of the Penal Code unconstitutional and invalid.

Authorities cited

Legislation (2)
  • Penal Code, Cap 63, Laws of Kenya
  • Constitution of Kenya 2010
Cases cited (4)
  • R v Oakes [1986] 1 SCR 103
  • Hogan v Hinch (2011) 243 CLR 506
  • Roach v Electoral Commissioner (2007) 233 CLR 162
  • Adrienne Stone, 'The Limits of Constitutional Text and Structure: Standards of Review and the Freedom of Political Communication' (1999) 23 Melbourne University Law Review 668
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