By Sam Alfan.

Muthaiga Country Club has been ordered to pay veteran city lawyer Donald Kipkorir Sh1 million for violating his constitutional rights.

In its ruling, the court found that the club’s decision to deny Kipkorir entry on August 9, 2024, was humiliating and amounted to a violation of his human dignity.

“The humiliation, coupled with the lack of justifiable reasons, injured the petitioner’s right to human dignity in violation of Article 28 of the Constitution,” the court stated.

The court also cited Article 47(2) of the Constitution, which requires that when a person’s rights or freedoms are adversely affected by an administrative action, they must be given written reasons for that decision.

Kipkorir argued that the August 2024 incident was a continuation of a similar episode in October 2022, when he was initially denied access to the club but later admitted after raising a complaint.

“Taking into account the parties’ proposals vis-à-vis the nature of the violation, the court is of the view that compensation of Sh1,000,000 is fair and reasonable,” Justice Mwita said.

The court rejected Muthaiga Country Club’s proposal of a Sh500,000 award.

However, the club was spared the Sh10 million sought by the lawyer, despite the mental and psychological impact he claimed the incident had caused him.

In the 53-page decision, Justice Mwita found that while the club violated Kipkorir’s rights, there was no evidence of discrimination.

The court noted that Article 27 of the Constitution guarantees every person equality before the law and equal protection and benefit of the law. This includes full and equal enjoyment of all rights and freedoms regardless of social or other status.

“It is clear that the Constitution abhors in absolute terms all forms of discrimination so that one’s social standing, origin, colour, religious belief, or any other ground cannot be reason for subjecting the person to differential treatment,” the court observed.

Kipkorir told the court that on the day of the 2024, incident, he had been invited by a client—who is a member of the club—to meet at the premises to take instructions on a legal matter. Upon arrival, he was denied entry without explanation, leading him to believe he had been unfairly blacklisted.

He added that for over 20 years, he had attended meetings at the club on invitation from members without any problems. Although he is not and does not intend to become a member, he argued that he should not be barred from accessing the club when invited by clients who are members.

The August 2024 incident, he said, left him feeling mistreated and unjustly excluded, especially given the earlier similar experience in 2022.