By Grace Gilo
The Kenya African National Union (KANU) Party has expressed its frustrations with the Environment and Land Court.
KANU’s director of communications, Manasse Nyainda stated that the court allegedly appeared to be deliberately obstructing their next legal action following the ruling on the ownership of the land where KICC is located.
“The KANU Party wishes to publicly express its vehement frustrations with the Environment and Land Court in what is emerging as a well-choreographed scheme to block its next course of legal action following the ruling on the case of ownership of the parcel of land on which KICC sits,” expressed the KANU’S communication director.
Manasse stated that the ruling, rendered on Monday, June 3, 2024, is fundamentally flawed in law and fact.
Read more: KANU Loses KICC Ownership
According to KANU’s director of communications, the party’s legal team has been waiting at the court’s registry for five days to be furnished with the signed copy of the judgement but to no avail.
“However, for the fifth day running, the party’s legal team has literally camped at the court’s registry waiting to be furnished with the signed copy of the “typed” judgement to no avail,” the party’s communication director revealed.
Manasse further noted that the party’s lawyers needed to examine the content of the judgement to determine the grounds for an appeal.
“The impediments deliberately erected to explicitly deny the party’s legal team access to the full judgement threaten to scuttle the critical preparation for the next legal steps,” wrote Manasse.
The party therefore demands the immediate release of the judgement and failure to do so would confirm that political motives influenced the ruling.
“We demand the immediate release of the judgement. Failure to do so will confirm our worst fears: that the ruling was chiefly and cheaply motivated by political pandering to the whims of the powers that be,” read KANU’s statement in part.
The communication director reiterated that withholding the judgment without justification demonstrated a blatant disregard for fair legal processes and a violation of their right to appeal.
“The unwarranted withholding of the judgement constitutes a blatant disregard for the principles of fair legal processes and a gross transgression of our right to appeal. The court must not set itself on a path of steady descent into judicial impunity,” added Manasse.