The High Court has issued a game-changing verdict allowing public officials to be served court documents via email or at their offices. This ruling comes amid legal proceedings against former Inspector General of Police Japhet Koome.
Justice Roselyne Aburili dismissed Koome’s bid to overturn an earlier decision that held him accountable for police brutality during the Gen-Z protests in June 2025. Koome had claimed he wasn’t properly served and sought to invalidate the ruling based on technical grounds.
However, the court rejected his arguments, stating that personal service is not always required for high-ranking public officials. Judge Aburili said officials like Koome can be served electronically or through official work premises, especially when security risks are involved.
She emphasized the sensitivity of serving someone with police powers, particularly during politically charged moments. The judge argued that it is impractical to expect process servers to locate and serve such officers physically without potential intimidation.
According to the court, process servers must be protected from potential harm, especially when dealing with police stations or armed officers. Justice Aburili further stated that fears for personal safety were legitimate in this context.
The ruling follows an earlier decision by Justice Ngaah Jairus, who found Koome responsible for the actions of officers under his command. Koome was taken to court over excessive force used during demonstrations, including fatal incidents involving Gen-Z protestors.
Human rights groups have remained vocal in pushing for justice over Koome’s alleged misconduct while in office. A separate petition has been filed accusing him of issuing a harsh directive against striking doctors in April 2024.
Following that directive, KMPDU Secretary General Davji Atelah was seriously injured during a peaceful protest in Nairobi. Activists argue that Koome’s leadership style encouraged excessive force and ignored constitutional freedoms.
The court’s latest ruling is being seen as a milestone for accountability in public office. It reinforces the idea that legal responsibility cannot be dodged through technicalities or rank.
Critics say the judgment is a strong message to state officers that no one is above the law. Legal experts believe it will set a precedent for similar cases involving senior government officials.
By Newshub