The High Court has removed former President Daniel arap Moi’s name from a case in which the family of a former Nandi MP Jean-Marie Seroney is seeking compensation over his unlawful detention.
Judge Isaac Lenaola granted the former head of state reprieve in his ruling on Friday saying that there was no cause of action against him.
“With the facts presented herein, it is very difficult to find any link in creating a cause of action between the Seroneys’ complaints and any actions of Mr Moi in his personal capacity, his name is therefore struck off from these proceedings,” Justice Lenaola ruled.
The judge defended the former president saying that he can indeed be sued directly and personally for alleged human rights violations under the current Constitution but only if credible evidence is presented.
On February 27, Ms Zipporah Seroney completely refused to give her testimony in open court and demanded that she could only do so in the presence of Mr Moi.
And the judge while declaring that the Attorney-General will remain the sued party in the case, ruled that vendetta and revenge should not be the prime focus of litigation.
ADHERE TO COURT PROCESS
“Whatever her pain and whatever blame she has personally apportioned Mr Moi for that pain, the processes of this court must be adhered to and only then can justice have real meaning to all parties whatever their status, past and present, and whatever personal or other differences they may have,” Justice Lenaola said.
Mr Moi had filed two applications in 2014 challenging the fact that he had been sued by the former MP’s family and he had sought to be excluded from the court battle.
The late Seroney’s family had sued Mr Moi and the AG over his detention without trial between 1975 and December 11, 1978.
The family claimed that their fundamental rights were violated and blamed the former president as well as the police who were under his government whom they said acted under his instructions.
But Mr Moi in his applications argued that he was not a guarantor of their fundamental rights and freedom.
He also told the court that an individual cannot be the custodian of one’s fundamental rights and freedom.
He further argued that in the Constitution, fundamental rights and freedoms are guaranteed and secured by the state hence it is the one which should have been sued.
But the family had insisted that Mr Moi should be held liable but the judge also dismissed these claims.
He directed that hearing of the case continues expeditiousl
0 comments:
Post a Comment