The case by Japhet Muroko comes barely two months after the High Court threw out a similar suit on grounds that the applicants had not proven how their rights had been violated/FILE
The case by Japhet Muroko comes barely two months after the High Court threw out a similar suit on grounds that the applicants had not proven how their rights had been violated.
Muroko’s case lists Transport Cabinet Secretary Michael Kamau, the Attorney-General, Inspector General of police and the National Transport and Safety Authority as respondents.
He argues that the breathalysers are an abuse of the constitutional rights of members of the public, do not meet the required standards and are therefore unlawful.
“The gadgets should be immediately banned or be confiscated and that the manufacturers be prohibited until the relevant Kenyan standards are complied with as provided in the Standards Act Cap 496 laws of Kenya,” he states.
He also contends that several businesses have been closed down following implementation of the alcoblow leading to job losses.
Justice Mumbi Ngugi dismissed petitions lodged by city motorist Richard Dickson Ogendo and Reminisce bar and grill proprietor Kariuki Riutha on June 9 on grounds that use of the gadget did not violate their fundamental rights and freedoms.
READ Alcoblow here to stay as cases dismissed
READ Bar owner files second case against Alcoblow
Justice Ngugi held that the petitioners failed to show how the device violates their right to privacy, dignity and protection of property.
She also ruled that the use of alcoblow did not need parliamentary approval since the Transport Cabinet Secretary was empowered to make such rules.
The offence of drunk driving carries a fine not exceeding Sh100,000 or imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years.
About The Author
