Former President Uhuru Kenyatta's son Jomo has withdrawn a case he filed against the government over plans to take away his firearms.
In a consent adopted by High Court judge, Jairus Ngaah, on Wednesday, Jomo withdrew the case he filed last year after the State agreed not to interfere with his firearms licence.
The parties also agreed that the Firearms Licensing Board does not intend to revoke the licence and that it will follow the procedure laid down in the Firearms Act in dealing with Jomo.
"By consent, this matter is hereby marked as settled," said Justice Ngaah.
Jomo approached the court in July last year after police officers raided his Windy Ridge home in Karen and demanded that he surrender his firearms.
The consent was read out by his lawyer, Senior Counsel Fred Ngatia, and State Attorney Munene Wanjohi confirmed that this was the position.
Through Mr Ngatia, Jomo went to court claiming that his constitutional rights were under threat after police officers stormed his Windy Ridge home in Karen on Friday, July 21, 2023, and verbally demanded that he surrender his firearms.
Mr Ngatia argued that the decision was made without following the procedure set out in the Firearms Act.
Does not have the authority
“The unilateral decision by the 1st and 2nd respondents to arbitrarily withdraw or revoke the applicant’s license is illegal and ultra vires since the 1st respondent does not have the authority to unilaterally and arbitrarily withdraw the licence without following the set-out procedure,” he said in the petition filed through senior counsel Fred Ngatia.
He sued the Chief Licensing Officer, the Firearms Licensing Board and the Attorney General.
The board had opposed the petition and asked the court to dismiss the case on the grounds that it was based on speculation.
The board also faulted Jomo for failing to exhaust the remedies available under the Firearms Act before going to court.
But Jomo said he was apprehensive that the officers might deploy brute force to compel him to surrender his firearms and licence and “whilst so engaged attract media attention with the resultant publication that the applicant has been dispossessed his firearms thus unwittingly inviting criminal elements to target the applicant”.
He accused the board of failing to notify him of the intended revocation and therefore sought the protection of the court.
