A petition filed by 15 former Kenya Air Force soldiers seeking compensation for arrest, detention, and torture on charges of attempting to overthrow the government was dismissed by the court.
The petitioners moved to court in 2017 serving the Attorney General because their fundamental rights and freedoms had been violated.
According to their petition, they underwent torture including being stripped naked and public embarrassment for a crime they did not commit.
Further, they stated that they were manhandled by officials drawn from the Kenya Army and the Kenya prisons under the order of the government in 1982.
“We were made to walk on our knees on concrete floors. We were stripped naked in public, bludgeoned all over our bodies and moved into custody in military trucks whilst naked and in full view of the public,” they stated in their affidavit.
However, according to the ruling by Justice Stephen Radido of the Kisumu Labour Court on May 17, the former soldiers did not show any seriousness towards the proceedings.
Radido stated that the petitioners showed a lack of interest signifying their failure to comply with the direction issued by the court.
“The Petitioners have treated the proceedings casually as they only waited for the Court to issue a Notice to Show Cause before seeking directions on the Motion which had been filed nearly 3 years earlier.
“The lack of interest and seriousness on the part of the Petitioners is further signified by the failure to comply with the directions issued on 27 March 2023,” the judge ruled.
In the ruling, Radido noted that in September 2017, the court held that the petition was invalid because the former soldiers submitted documents that had not been signed.
The Court also noted that the supporting affidavit to the motion filed with the petition was sworn by the advocate and not one of the petitioners.
"When the parties next appeared before the Court on April 12, 2018, the Court reiterated that the Petition had been struck out.
"When the motion was scheduled for a later date, the petitioners also failed to attend court and their application was declined," Justice Radido explained.
The Court thereafter issued a notice to the petitioners to show cause why the petition ought not to be dismissed and they addressed the court on March 2023 and were further directed to submit exchange submissions which they did not submit within the required timeline.
"The respondent filed his submissions on 15 May 2023. The petitioner's submissions were not on record by the agreed timelines.
"First, the Petitioners did not (and have not attempted) attempt to cure the defects which led the Court to strike out the Petition," added the ruling.
