The High Court in Kerugoya allowed an application by Law Society of Kenya (LSK) President Faith Odhiambo to be struck out as a party in three consolidated constitutional petitions challenging the formation of the Compensation Panel for Victims of Police Brutality.
Justice Edward Muriithi ruled that there was no legal basis to retain Odhiambo in her private capacity after she resigned from the panel on October 6 and her appointment revoked by Gazette Notice No. 7904 issued on November 4.
The petitions, consolidated as HCCHRPET/E010/2025, E011/2025, and E014/2025, were filed by Levi Munyeri, the GEMA Watho Association, and Eunice Nganga against the Attorney General, the Cabinet Secretary for Interior and National Administration, and the Cabinet Secretary for the National Treasury.
Several individuals and entities, among them Prof. Makau Mutua, Irungu Houghton, the Kenya National Commission on Human Rights (KNCHR), and the Law Society of Kenya (LSK), are listed as interested parties.
The petitioners had objected to Odhiambo’s removal, arguing that she was personally responsible for alleged contempt of court after the panel reportedly continued its work despite existing conservatory orders.
They also claimed that her appointment to the panel while serving as LSK president breached Chapter Six of the Constitution, the Leadership and Integrity Act, and the Conflict of Interest Act, 2025.
However, Justice Muriithi dismissed the objections, holding that the alleged acts of contempt occurred after Odhiambo had already resigned and that she could not be held liable for the actions of the panel following her exit.
“Unless it is a matter of personal vendetta, which this court cannot countenance, the alleged contempt may be pursued against the members of the panel who remain after the resignation of the 2nd Interested Party,” the judge said.
He further ruled that since the Law Society of Kenya remains a party to the case, the court can still address questions surrounding the propriety of appointing its president to the panel without Odhiambo’s personal participation.
Justice Muriithi also held that the Conflict of Interest Act applies to state and public officers and not to private bodies, saying the BBI case cited by the petitioners was not relevant in the circumstances.
The judge ruled that keeping Odhiambo in the petition would impose undue hardship as she would have to defend herself privately in a matter in which she has no continuing interest.
“Accordingly, for the reasons set out above, the Court finds merit in the application, and it is allowed as prayed in Prayers Nos. 1, 2 and 3 thereof,” ruled the court.
Email your news TIPS to Editor@Kahawatungu.com — this is our only official communication channel
