Imanyara & 2 others v Attorney General
The bottom line
#Supreme Court raised damages for activists and allowed shareholder to claim for company losses.
What this practically means
#The Supreme Court of Kenya increased the compensation for three activists whose rights were violated during the fight for multi-party democracy. The Court said the earlier awards were too low and raised them significantly. It also ruled that a shareholder can claim for losses a company suffered if the violation directly harmed the shareholder's own rights, not just the company's. The case was sent back to the High Court to decide the exact amount for the shareholder's claim.
Executive summary
#Questions the Court framed
#The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.
- 1.Whether the appeal before this Court meets the constitutional threshold under article 163(4)(a) of the Constitution?
- 2.Whether the Court of Appeal erred in interpreting article 23(3) of the Constitution specifically, on the available remedies once liability had been admitted.
- 3.Whether the 1st appellant's conviction was unlawful, if so, should it be set aside?
Key legal issues
#Whether the Court of Appeal erred in interpreting article 23(3) of the Constitution on available remedies once liability was admitted.
The Court of Appeal erred in affirming the trial court's assessment of general damages as manifestly low, given the gravity of the violations and the admission of liability. The Supreme Court enhanced the awards.
The Supreme Court found that the Court of Appeal applied the correct principles for appellate interference with quantum but failed to appreciate that the awards were so inordinately low as to be a wholly erroneous estimate. The Court considered the duration and severity of the violations, the admission of liability by the Attorney General, and comparable awards in similar cases. It held that the remedy must meaningfully vindicate the violated rights, especially where there was willful and intentional violation. The Court enhanced the 1st appellant's award from Kshs 15 million to Kshs 25 million, the 2nd appellant's from Kshs 10 million to Kshs 20 million, and the 3rd appellant's from Kshs 7 million to Kshs 15 million.
Whether the 2nd appellant can claim special damages for losses suffered by the Finance Magazine, a company associated with him.
The 2nd appellant can claim for losses suffered by the company as a result of constitutional violations visited upon him, provided he proves personal and distinct loss. The matter was remitted to the High Court for determination of quantum.
The Supreme Court distinguished the Salomon v Salomon principle, holding that in public law claims for constitutional violations, a shareholder may claim for loss of income arising from the company's losses if the violation constitutes an infraction of the shareholder's own rights, such as the right to property. The Court found that the 2nd appellant's claim was a public law claim for deprivation of fundamental rights, not a private law claim for company losses. The trial court erred in failing to interrogate the KPMG report. The matter was remitted to the High Court to determine quantum on priority basis.
Whether the 1st appellant's criminal conviction should be set aside.
The claim to set aside the conviction is dismissed for lack of evidence of interference with the trial or appeal process.
The Supreme Court agreed with the Court of Appeal that the 1st appellant failed to provide any evidence of how the then Attorney General interfered with his criminal trial or appeal. The record was silent on the particulars and extent of any interference. The conviction had already been the subject of a criminal appeal (Criminal Appeal Number 1762 of 1984), and no evidence was tendered to show that the trial or appeal was unfair.
Legal principles established
#- Appellate court can only change damages if trial judge considered irrelevant factor, omitted relevant one, or amount is inordinately low or high.
- Factors for assessing constitutional violation damages include duration, suffering, responsibility, extent, and that award is discretionary and vindicatory.
- A shareholder can claim for company losses if the constitutional violation infringes the shareholder's own rights (public law claim).
- Claim to set aside a conviction fails without evidence of interference with the trial or appeal process.
- Remedy for constitutional violations must meaningfully vindicate the violated rights, especially for willful violations.
Court orders
#- 1.The appellants are awarded general damages as follows: Gitobu Imanyara Kshs 25,000,000; Njehu Gatabaki Kshs 20,000,000; Bedan Mbugua Kshs 15,000,000.
- 2.The proceedings herein be remitted to the High Court, in terms of paragraph 102 above. It is ordered that the Principal Judge of High Court, on priority basis allocates a judge to finalize it.
- 3.The 1st appellant's claim for quashing of the conviction and sentence by the Magistrate's court is hereby dismissed.
- 4.The appellants shall have the costs thereof.
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
- On appeal from
- Court of Appeal at Nairobi
- Civil Appeal No 98 of 2014
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Article 163(4)(a) of the Constitution
Relief refused
#Setting aside the 1st appellant's criminal conviction
No evidence tendered to show that his trial and the subsequent appeal was unfair or violated his rights.
Compensation for losses suffered by the Nairobi Law Monthly (1st appellant's company)
Not specifically pleaded or particularized in the superior courts below.
Compensation for losses suffered by Beyond Magazine and People Daily (3rd appellant's companies)
Claim not progressed through appropriate appellate mechanism; not specifically claimed at trial court.
Costs
The appellants shall have the costs thereof.
Quotable passages
#Verbatim from the judgment, each located to the page it appears on in the official PDF — so these can be cited and checked directly.
That the Proceedings herein be remitted to the High Court, in terms of paragraph 102 above. In view of the period that has lapsed since the violations, the filing, hearing and determination of this matter before all the three courts, it is ordered that the Principal Judge of High Court, on priority basis allocates a judge to finalize it.
The 1st appellant's claim for quashing of the conviction and sentence by the Magistrate's court is hereby dismissed
The appellants shall have the costs thereof.
While we agree with the reasons advanced by the Court of Appeal for non-interference with the trial's court finding on general damages, we are persuaded that the amounts awarded to the 1st appellant by the trial court and affirmed by the Court of Appeal was manifestly low to justify interference.
Having extensively done a comparative analysis above, we find that the 2nd appellant's claim is a public law claim for infractions to his rights under the Constitution, and therefore, the principles enunciated in Salmon case do not apply.
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Appellate interference with quantum clarified
When challenging damages for constitutional violations, argue that the award is so inordinately low it is a wholly erroneous estimate. The Supreme Court applied the traditional test but found the Court of Appeal failed to see the awards were manifestly low given the gravity and admission of liability. Use the six-factor test from this case to frame submissions.
Shareholder claims for company losses
If your constitutional rights are violated and that violation causes losses to a company you own, you may claim those losses as personal damages. This is a public law claim, not a derivative action. Ensure you prove distinct personal loss, not just the company's loss. The case was remitted for quantum, so this is an evolving area.
Vindication of rights through damages
If your constitutional rights are violated, you can seek damages that vindicate the rights, not just compensate for loss. The Supreme Court emphasized that awards must be meaningful, especially for intentional violations. The duration of suffering, level of harm, and responsibility of the violator are key factors. This case shows courts will enhance low awards.
Frequently asked questions
#What is the Imanyara case about in Kenya?+
It is a Supreme Court case where three activists sued for constitutional rights violations during Kenya's multi-party democracy struggle. The Court increased their damages and allowed a shareholder to claim for losses a company suffered due to the violation.
Can a shareholder sue for company losses in Kenya?+
Yes, if the shareholder's own constitutional rights are violated and that causes personal loss distinct from the company's loss. The Supreme Court in Imanyara v AG said this is a public law claim, not a derivative action, and remitted the matter for quantum assessment.
How are damages calculated for constitutional violations in Kenya?+
Courts consider: duration of detention, physical and mental suffering, degree of responsibility of the violator, extent of violation, and that the award is discretionary and vindicatory, not compensatory or punitive. The Imanyara case applied these factors to enhance awards.
What is the principle of vindication in Kenyan constitutional law?+
It means damages for constitutional violations are meant to vindicate the violated rights, not just compensate for loss. The Supreme Court in Imanyara v AG stressed that awards must be meaningful, especially for willful violations, to affirm the importance of the rights.
Later judgments citing this (11)
#Judgments in the corpus that rely on this one. Where the Court said how it treated the authority, that is shown.
- Mutethia Farmers Cooperatives Society v Cabinet Secretary Ministry of Lands & 6 others (Environment and Land Petition E004 of 2026) [2026] KEELC 4783 (KLR)[2026] KEELC 4783 (KLR)21 Jul 2026applied
- Petal Investment Ltd v Tripple N Car Clinic Ltd (Environment and Land Case 813 of 2017) [2026] KEELC 5006 (KLR)[2026] KEELC 5006 (KLR)20 Jul 2026applied
- Siddique w/o Arshad Sharif & 2 others v Attorney General & 4 others[2026] KESC 54 (KLR)3 Jul 2026
- Ochieng v Attorney General[2026] KESC 32 (KLR)15 May 2026distinguished
- Ombaba v Kimanda (Environment and Land Appeal E024 of 2025) [2026] KEELC 2434 (KLR)[2026] KEELC 2434 (KLR)29 Apr 2026
- National Assembly v Gikonyo & 9 others (Civil Appeal E884 & E868 of 2024 (Consolidated)) [2026] KECA 214 (KLR)[2026] KECA 214 (KLR)6 Feb 2026applied
- Mecca & another (Suing on behalf of the Estate of Estate of Elizabeth Nasimiyu Nyongesa) v County Government of Trans-Nzoia (Environment and Land Case E021 of 2023) [2025] KEELC 8376 (KLR)[2025] KEELC 8376 (KLR)26 Nov 2025
- Mereng & another v Mereng (Environment and Land Appeal E003 of 2023) [2025] KEELC 8254 (KLR)[2025] KEELC 8254 (KLR)26 Nov 2025applied
- Independent Policing Oversight Authority v Siddique w/o Arshad Sharif & 6 others (Civil Appeal E802 of 2024) [2025] KECA 1456 (KLR)[2025] KECA 1456 (KLR)31 Jul 2025
- Claassen v Commissioner of Lands & 6 others (Environment and Land Petition 7 of 2015) [2025] KEELC 5287 (KLR)[2025] KEELC 5287 (KLR)9 Jul 2025applied
- Kenya Wildlife Service v Sea Star Malindi Limited[2025] KESC 42 (KLR)27 Jun 2025
Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Imanyara & 2 others v Attorney General", Case Analysis (2022). Petition 15 of 2017. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.orghttps://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kesc/2022/78/eng@2022-02-17
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.