Nyali MP asks court to dismiss case by Kenyatta-linked Brookside firm
Nyali MP Mohamed Ali. He wants the court to dismiss a suit filed against him by Brookside Limited.
Nyali MP Mohamed Ali yesterday asked court to dismiss a case filed against him by Brookside Dairy Limited, a milk processing company associated with the family of President Uhuru Kenyatta, after he alleged that it was exploiting and financially oppressing dairy farmers.
The firm moved to court last week seeking a permanent order barring the lawmaker from advocating public hatred against it or inciting the public.
It alleged that the MP was inciting the public to cause economic and commercial harm to its business and that he violated its constitutional rights.
But Mr Ali yesterday filed an objection seeking dismissal of the suit on grounds that it was incompetent.
Through his lawyer Adrian Kamotho Njenga, the lawmaker also claimed that the intention of the suit is to gag him as he downplayed claims that he had violated the company’s constitutional rights.
Fundamental freedoms
He argued that the rights enshrined in the Constitution, under the Bill of Rights, are to be enjoyed by natural persons and not corporate entities.
“The Bill of Rights affords protections and guarantees for natural persons as individuals which protection does not extend to limited liability companies such as Brookside,” said lawyer Njenga.
He added that according to Article 19 (3) (a) of the Constitution, the rights and fundamental freedoms in the Bill of Rights belong to individuals and are incapable of being granted to a limited liability company.
Mr Njenga said the court does not have powers to determine the issues raised by the company since the suit does not disclose with precision and particularity any constitutional or human rights violations, as is legally mandatory.
“The power of this court has been improperly invoked since it’s expressly ousted by virtue of Brookside being a corporate entity. Brookside is not lawfully capable of petitioning the High Court for violation of own fundamental rights and freedoms under Articles 22 and 23 of the Constitution as purported,” said Mr Njenga.
In the suit filed at the Human Rights and Constitutional Division, Brookside alleged violation of its rights as stipulated in Articles 20, 27 and 33 of the Constitution (on the Bill of Rights).
Article 20 provides that The Bill of Rights applies to all law and binds all State organs and all persons and that every person should enjoy the rights and fundamental freedoms in the Bill of Rights.
Article 27 talks about equality and freedom from discrimination. It provides every person is equal before the law and has the right to equal protection and equal benefit of the law.
It also provides that equality includes the full and equal enjoyment of all rights and fundamental freedoms.
Vilifying its products
Article 33 talks about freedom of expression. It provides that every person has the right to freedom of expression, which includes freedom to seek, receive or impart information or ideas; freedom of artistic creativity and academic freedom and freedom of scientific research.
The Constitution says the right to freedom of expression does not extend to propaganda for war, incitement to violence, hate speech or advocacy of hatred that constitutes ethnic incitement, vilification of others or incitement to cause harm.
It also adds that the freedom of expression should not be based on any ground of discrimination and that in the exercise of the right to freedom of expression, every person should respect the rights and reputation of others.
The lawsuit arose from remarks the MP allegedly made on March 3 at a public rally in Nyeri town. He alleged that Brookside was exploiting farmers by buying raw milk for Sh20 and reselling it at Sh120 after processing.
“Uhuru Kenyatta comes here, buys milk at Sh20, he goes and boils it and then sells it back to you at Sh120," Mr Ali said according to court papers.
“The statement meant that the company exploits the dairy farmers who sell and supply milk to it as raw material for its business. The said statement also meant that the company subjects farmers or suppliers to unfair treatment,” the firm said in its petition.
In relation to its consumers, the company says the MP’s statement meant that it sells milk products that were not processed or manufactured to the required health or safety standards and are of substandard quality.
“The statement was meant to and did cause economic or commercial harm to the company and its business,” said the firm, adding that its rights under Article 20, 33(2) and 27 of the Constitution were violated by the MP’s advocating public hatred against it.
By vilifying its products, the company argued, Mr Ali violated its constitutional right to a good reputation.
The matter is pending hearing and determination.
