(VOI) – The High Court has declared directives issued by former Deputy President Rigathi Gachagua and former Interior Cabinet Secretary Kithure Kindiki on the regulation of bars as unconstitutional. The court found that the orders, which restricted operating hours for bars between 5pm and 11pm and required closure of bars in residential areas, had no legal basis and were issued without public participation.
Justice Asenath Ongeri, in her judgment delivered on 3 July 2025, ruled that the directives violated the Constitution, as they attempted to override the powers of county governments, which are responsible for liquor licensing under devolved functions.
The case was brought before the court by the Voi Liquor Business Owners Community-Based Organisation, whose members challenged the actions of the Voi Sub-County Police Commander, Voi Police Station Commander, Deputy County Commissioner, County Commissioner, and the Attorney General.
The petitioners claimed that the national government directives lacked legal authority and were imposed without procedural fairness, violating their rights under the Constitution. They argued that both the former Deputy President and Cabinet Secretary acted beyond their mandate, interfering with the functions of the Taita-Taveta County Government, which regulates alcohol through the Taita-Taveta County Alcoholic Drinks Control and Licensing Act, 2016.
Justice Ongeri agreed with their argument, stating that the actions taken by the authorities failed to follow legal processes. The judge noted that the petitioners had valid liquor licences issued by the county, and that their businesses were closed without prior notice, hearing, or justification. This, the court ruled, amounted to an unjust deprivation of property and a breach of the Fair Administrative Action Act.
| Key Findings by the Court | Legal Implications |
|---|---|
| Directives lacked legal framework | Declared unconstitutional |
| No public participation or consultation | Violated constitutional principles |
| Forced closure of licensed businesses | Deemed illegal and unjust |
| Selective enforcement of rules | Resulted in unequal treatment |
| County liquor law overrides national directives on licensing | Upheld devolution under Constitution |
The petitioners maintained that their rights to equality, non-discrimination, and fair administrative action had been breached, particularly as they were not given any opportunity to defend themselves. They also pointed out that the national orders undermined the authority of counties, contrary to the principles of devolution.
On the other hand, the respondents argued that the businesses were closed lawfully and that the petitioners had no valid licences at the time of enforcement. They claimed that the licences presented by the petitioners had been issued during an inspection period and were therefore invalid.
They also denied acting under directives from the Deputy President or Cabinet Secretary, instead stating that they were simply enforcing the county’s licensing laws. The government officials further argued that their actions were reasonable and aimed at maintaining public order and safety.
However, the court rejected these arguments, finding that due process had not been followed. Justice Ongeri ruled that the respondents had failed to give the affected business owners the chance to be heard or to issue written reasons for the closures.
As a result, the court issued an injunction restraining the respondents from enforcing the directives and from further interfering with the operations of the petitioners’ businesses.
The judgment reinforces the role of county governments in regulating liquor licences and upholding constitutional protections for property and fair administrative procedures.
