Site icon KahawaTungu

Win for LGBTQ Community as Supreme Court Reaffirms Right to Register NGO

lgbtq register ngo

Kenya's LGBTQ Community.[GETTY IMAGES]

The Supreme Court has thrown out a petition challenging the registration of LGBTQ lobby groups under the NGOs Act.

Homa Bay Town MP Peter Kaluma had challenged decisions by the High Court and Court of Appeal allowing the registration of the NGO.

After deciding on a legal interpretation, the two superior courts reached the conclusion that all people, regardless of sexual orientation, are included in the term “every person” as defined by Article 36 of the Constitution.

Kaluma contested the claim and charged that the judiciary had allowed the country to be inundated with messages in favor of homosexuality and lesbianism.

Read: Homa Bay MP Kaluma Submits Bill Criminalizing LGBTQ

On Tuesday, however, the Apex court dismissed Kaluma’s appeal and declared him incompetent, stating that he was not a party to the lawsuit from the start.

“Section 21A of the Supreme Court Act provides for the circumstances pursuant to which this Court may review its own decision on an application filed by “a party”,” the court said.

The Court ruled that Kaluma had failed to establish that the other courts reached their decisions in a dishonest manner.

“The applicant has [not] demonstrated to our satisfaction that the impugned Judgment was obtained by fraud or deceit, is a nullity, or that the court was misled into giving its judgment under a mistaken belief that the parties had consented thereto.”

Read Also: Wetangula Denounces Supreme Court’s Ruling on LGBTQ Rights Groups

According to the court, Kaluma’s request did not meet the requirements for appeals.

“This Court has neither jurisdiction to sit on appeal nor to review its decisions other than in the manner provided for by Section 21A of the Supreme Court Act,” the five-judge bench ruled.

“In our view, the application is a disguised appeal from this Court’s judgment and does not fall within the confines of the parameters prescribed for review by statute and applicable case law.”



Exit mobile version