Case Background
The High Court at Milimani issued a ruling on July 9, 2025, in the case of Katiba Institute versus the State Law Office. The court addressed a petition filed on June 23, 2025, alongside a certificate of urgency and a notice of motion, where Katiba Institute challenged the Inspector General of Police’s practice of blocking public roads without notice.
Service and Response
The court verified that the State Law Office received the legal papers as ordered, with the affidavit providing evidence of service. The ruling notes that the respondents had three days to respond but failed to submit any defense or appear in court on the hearing date. This absence left the petitioner’s claims unchallenged, encouraging the court to consider the renewed application for a conservatory order based on the submitted evidence.
Public Inconvenience
Katiba Institute presented a supplementary affidavit detailing the disruption caused on July 7, 2025, when police blocked roads without prior warning. The statement describes how citizens could not reach workplaces, ambulances struggled to access hospitals, and courts adjourned due to absent staff and witnesses. The lack of notice from the Inspector General of Police created significant hardship, forming the basis of the petitioner’s argument for immediate judicial intervention.
Court’s Decision
Justice Lawrence Mugambi, in his ruling, found the request for a conservatory order justified due to the public’s experience of inconvenience. He issued an order that restrains the Inspector General of Police and subordinate officers from setting up barricades or roadblocks in Nairobi County’s Central Business District or other public roads without issuing a timely advisory. This measure aims to allow citizens to adjust their plans before any emergency road closures take effect.
Judiciary’s Clarification
On July 10, 2025, the Judiciary released a statement clarifying the ruling’s intent, emphasizing that it provides temporary guidance pending a full hearing. Spokesperson Paul Ndemo explained that the order does not prohibit police from using barricades but requires prior notice to avoid disrupting public order. This clarification addresses potential misunderstandings about the scope of the court’s directive.
Legal Implications
The ruling aligns with constitutional rights to movement and assembly, reflecting the court’s role in ensuring police actions respect public access. The failure of the State Law Office to respond suggests a gap in addressing the petition’s concerns, which may influence future enforcement of roadblock policies. The matter remains open, with a hearing scheduled for a later date to determine a final outcome.
Conclusion
This ruling marks a step toward balancing security measures with public rights in Nairobi, as the court seeks to prevent unannounced disruptions. The Judiciary’s clarification reinforces the temporary nature of the order, while the ongoing case will shape how police manage protests moving forward. The decision emphasizes the need for transparency and planning, guiding future interactions between law enforcement and citizens during public gatherings.
Leave a Reply