CM (Suing on her own behalf and on behalf of PM (Minor) as parent) & Others v. Hon. Attorney General & Others [2020] eKLR Case Summary

Explore the 2020 eKLR case CM & Others v. Hon. Attorney General, highlighting key legal implications regarding parental rights and child welfare. Ideal for legal enthusiasts and scholars.

Case Brief: CM (Suing on her on behalf and on behalf of PM (Minor) as parent) & 8 others v Attorney General & 2 others; M/S Independent Medico-Legal Unit (IMLU) (Interested Party); Margaret Othieno Makanyengo & another (Amicus Curiae) [2020] eKLR

1. Case Information:
- Name of the Case: CM (Suing on her own behalf and on behalf of PM (Minor) as parent) & Others v. Hon. Attorney General & Others
- Case Number: Petition No. 151 of 2020
- Court: High Court of Kenya at Nairobi
- Date Delivered: October 22, 2020
- Category of Law: Civil
- Judge(s): J. A. Makau
- Country: Kenya

2. Questions Presented:
The court must resolve whether the Petitioners' rights to dignity and protection from cruel, inhumane, and degrading treatment were violated due to their detention in mandatory quarantine facilities under COVID-19 regulations. Additionally, the court must determine the appropriateness of allowing various parties to join the proceedings as Interested Parties or Amicus Curiae.

3. Facts of the Case:
The Petitioners, consisting of individuals detained for allegedly violating COVID-19 curfew orders, sought to protect and enforce their fundamental rights. They claimed violations of several constitutional rights, including dignity and protection from cruel treatment. The Respondents included the Attorney General and Cabinet Secretaries, who were responsible for enforcing the COVID-19 regulations. The Petitioners sought remedies such as declarations of constitutional violations, judicial review orders, and compensation.

4. Procedural History:
The case progressed through the High Court, where three applications were considered: one for the joinder of the Independent Medico-Legal Unit (IMLU) as an Interested Party and two applications for joinder as Amicus Curiae from Dr. Margaret Othieno Makanyengo and the International Commission of Jurists (ICJ) Kenya. The Respondents opposed these applications, arguing that the proposed parties failed to demonstrate a distinct interest in the case.

5. Analysis:
- Rules: The court considered various constitutional provisions, including Articles 3, 10, 19, 20, 22, and 258 of the Kenyan Constitution, which protect fundamental rights and freedoms. Additionally, the court referenced the Mutunga Rules, which govern the participation of Interested Parties and Amicus Curiae in constitutional petitions.
- Case Law: The court cited the Supreme Court case of Francis K. Muruatetu & another v. Republic & 5 others (2016) eKLR, which set the criteria for joining as an Interested Party. The court also referenced Trusted Society of Human Rights Alliance v. Mumo Matemu (2014) eKLR, outlining the principles for admitting Amicus Curiae.
- Application: The court found that IMLU met the criteria for joinder as an Interested Party due to its expertise in issues of torture and degrading treatment, which were central to the Petitioners' claims. The court also determined that both Dr. Makanyengo and ICJ Kenya met the necessary requirements to join as Amicus Curiae, as their submissions would provide valuable assistance to the court without introducing bias or extraneous issues.

6. Conclusion:
The court ruled that the applications for joinder were allowed, granting IMLU the status of an Interested Party and Dr. Makanyengo and ICJ Kenya the status of Amicus Curiae. The court emphasized that their participation would enhance the judicial process by providing expert insights relevant to the case. This ruling has broader implications for the protection of human rights during public health emergencies, highlighting the role of civil society in judicial proceedings.

7. Dissent:
There were no dissenting opinions noted in the ruling.

8. Summary:
The High Court of Kenya allowed the applications for joinder in the case concerning the rights of individuals detained under COVID-19 regulations. The decision underscores the importance of expert contributions in legal proceedings related to human rights, particularly in the context of public health measures. The court's ruling reinforces the protection of constitutional rights and sets a precedent for future cases involving similar issues.