Introduction
1. The petition dated 19 th June 2023 is supported by the petitioner’s affidavit and the further affidavit dated 30 th June 2025.
2. The petition challenges the manner in which Stanbic Yetu Festival was conducted by the respondents. The petitioners contend that the event substantially departed from what had been advertised and was instead marked by widespread disorganisation including chaotic seating arrangements, poor sound and visual quality, obstructed views, limited performance, congestion, poor crowd control and inadequate sanitary facilities. In addition, the petitioner pleaded that there was a complete
absence of proper security measures which led to loss of revellers personal properties including mobile phones, national identity documents and ATMs.
3. According to the petitioners, these shortcomings taken cumulatively denied the revellers who were the consumers of the service the unique and unforgettable live music experience that the promoters had in their advertisements promised hence the petitioner avers constituted a violation of the consumer rights of the participants.
4. Consequently, the petitioner seeks the following reliefs: -
a) That this suit be declared a public interest and a class action suit in the meaning of Section 4 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2012.
b) A declaration be and is hereby issued that the actions of the 1 st , 2 nd and 3 rd respondents of failure to organize a concert of reasonable quality by failing to provide security, proper sanitation, quality audio, value for money and visual playback is a violation of Articles 46(1) of the Constitution and the Consumer Protection Act, 2012 at Sections 5 and 12.
c) A declaration be and is hereby issued that the actions of the 1 st , 2 nd and 3 rd respondents in admitting their failure in providing a concert of reasonable quality to its consumers but failing to offer compensation for the loss suffered by its customers is a violation of Article 46(1) of the Constitution.
d) A declaration be and is hereby issued that the actions of the 1 st , 2 nd and 3 rd respondents in failing to protect the health and safety of the members of the petitioner and other consumers during the Stanbic Yetu Festival is an infringement of Articles 46 of the Constitution.
e) That the court do and hereby issue an order directing the 1 st , 2 nd and 3 rd respondents to issue compensation to their customers who purchased the VIP and regular tickets for loss suffered due to their failure to comply with Article 46 of the Constitution.
f) The 1 st interested party be and is hereby ordered to formulate policies, regulatory framework and enforcement mechanisms in compliance with Article 46 of the Constitution that ensures organizers of public events and concerts have in place refund policies and measurable quality assurance mechanisms that protect consumers.
g) The 2 nd interested party be ordered and is hereby ordered to formulate policies, regulatory framework and enforcement mechanisms in compliance with Article 46 of the Constitution that ensure the public health and safety of consumers is attained during public entertainment events.
h) That this Honourable Court be pleased to grant such further orders as it may deem just and appropriate.
i) That the cost of this petition be met by the 1 st , 2 nd and 3 rd respondents.
5. In opposition to the petition, the 1 st , 2 nd and 3 rd respondents filed Replying Affidavits dated 11 th February 2024, 23rd May 2025 and 13 th February 2025 respectively.
The Petitioner’s Case
6. The petitioner is registered as a society under the Societies Act, Cap 108 on 26 th March 2010. It is an independent, self funded, multi sectorial, non political and apex non profit federation committed to ensure consumer protection, education, research, consultancy, litigation, anti-counterfeits campaign and
business rating on consumerism and customer care issues. The petitioner filed the instant petition on its own behalf and on behalf of its members and in the
interest of Kenyans who are discontented with the blatant disregard of consumer rights by private entities and in the public interest bearing its responsibility under Articles 3, 10, 22, 46 and 258 of the Constitution to respect, uphold and defend the Constitution.
7. On 20 th April 2023, the 3 rd respondent ran an advertisement dubbed “Second Edition of Stanbic Yetu Festival” which was to be held on 10 th June 2023 at Uhuru Gardens Nairobi. The advertisement indicated that the event was to be run by the 3 rd respondent in partnership with the 1 st respondent.
8. In marketing the event, the 1 st respondent was responsible through its events division “RA (Radio Africa) Events” where it boasted that RA Events had organized over two hundred and fifty events featuring local and international artists where they offer international and local artists booking, event management and events consultancy. The petitioner argues that with the said kind of experience, they were aware and ought to have been aware of what is required and expected in events organizing as well as public interest thereof. Further, the 3 rd respondent went ahead to promise that it would give Kenyans
a unique, unforgettable and authentic live music experience that would leave a lasting impression.
9. The petitioner avers that the 1 st respondent ran advertisements on their various media houses and social media platforms selling tickets in three main categories namely; - the main area ticket going for Kshs. 8,000/-, the VIP ticket going for Kshs. 15,000/- and the VVIP ticket going as a pair of Kshs. 30,000/- for Kshs. 60,000/-.
10. The regular ticket allowed a person entry to the venue, the VIP ticket allowed entry, a VIP dinner experience, separate lavatories and a separate designated seating area and the VVIP ticket allowed entry, VVIP dinner experience, a separate designated entrance and parking area, separate designated lavatories, a prepaid host bar and close proximity to the stage .
11. The rigorous advertisements by the 1 st and 2 nd respondents saw all tickets all the tickets were sold out, a fact confirmed by the 1 st and 2 nd Respondents.
12. On the day of the concert, ticket holders of the different categories who include petitioners’ members went for the Stanbic Yetu festival . However,
to their shock and disappointment, things were not as promised. The petitioner discloses that it received numerous complaints from its members and other revellers about the event as having been chaotic, disorganized, disorderly, unsafe, health hazard and full of stress instead of the entertainment they had hoped for.
13. That contrary to the marketing materials by the 1 st and 3 rd respondents, the categorization of regulars, VIP and VVIP was non-existent due to lack of proper physical controls to ensure participants remained in the category they had paid for and partly due to unscrupulous security teams that were taking inducements from some of the revellers who wanted to be moved from regular to VIP and from VIP to VVIP during the event.
14. As a result, there was extreme congestion which made it difficult to access sanitary facilities, food or revellers having a clear view of the main stage or following up on the screen. Free movement within the venue became impossible as pathways were blocked. According to the petitioner, with only six washrooms available, many people who visited the washroom found themselves unable to find their way back to their seats. The event organisers, the 1 st and 2 nd respondents, completely lost control and could no longer
manage the swelling crowd. Many other participants ended up standing for several hours while others lost their friends/kin in the chaotic event.
15. The petitioner avers that participants had legitimate expectations to watch “Boys II Men” directly as promised by the 1 st , 2 nd and 3 rd respondents but were unable to do so as they could neither view the stage nor watch from the screens as the equally small screens went off for the entire first performance. Further, the screens and sound system provided were of extremely poor quality with the instruments overpowering the vocals. This resulted in a frustrating experience of revellers trying to guess the songs or only recognizing them once the crowd started singing along. In fact, according to the petitioner, the concert performance was cut short at the main arena when the small screens failed in the middle of the Sauti sol performance.
16. The petitioner further averred that revellers confirmed in writing that the media centre was mounted right in the middle of the venue which effectively obstructed the free view of the main performance stage. The petitioner states that the view of the stage was completely obstructed from all angles by elevated media stand. Compounding the problems, a communication tower was inconveniently placed in the middle of the viewing area, directly in front of the stage and which added to obstructing the view of those who had paid
for regular tickets. Jostling for the view meant people standing and others standing on chairs or any higher ground including on trees.
17. The petitioner further reveals that a significant number of those who paid for the VIP ticket still failed to find a seat. Several VIPs were dismayed to discover that the front section of the same VIP area had been exclusively reserved for the staff of the 3 rd respondent who was the main sponsor. The said discriminatory practice, contrary to Article 27(4) of the Constitution, not only compromised the farness of the event but also left affected revellers feeling marginalized and prejudiced against. Further, the 1 st and 3 rd respondents did not disclose to the revellers that purchasers of a VIP ticket would also be required to “pre book” seats hence those who arrived at the venue at 4pm could not seat on the available seats as they were informed the same had been reserved for other persons who were yet to arrive at the venue.
18. Additionally, the performance by “Boys II Men” was disappointing as they only performed very few songs, spending a considerable amount of time on cover songs, which is not what the revellers had paid for.
19. Moreover. the conditions of the toilets were appalling. Not only were they inadequate but also filled to capacity. In one instance a lady attempted to
flush the toilet leading to an overflow of blue toilet liquid and tissue paper rushing towards others waiting on the long queue, an experience that was particularly inhumane and a public health hazard.
20. The petitioner states that was a complete absence of proper security measures which led to loss of personal properties including mobile phones, national identity documents and ATMs. The said incidences have been reported at Langata Police Station.
21. The petitioners contend that these issues left many revellers feeling deceived and cheated because the “Boys II Men” concert was a complete disaster and an unjustifiable waste of hard-earned monies from unsuspecting Kenyan consumers (revellers) who were duped by the 1 st , 2 nd and 3 rd respondents.
22. The petitioner contended that under relentless public pressure, particularly from social media and print media, the 1 st , 2 nd and 3 rd respondents issued a press conference on Monday, 12 th June, 2023. In that statement, which they did not deny the numerous challenges that arose at the event, they unreservedly apologised for the failure to meet expectations.
23. The petitioner argues that pursuant to Article 46(1)(d) of the Constitution , an apology is not enough and compensation in such instances is an absolute right and entitlement to the victims by the aggressors. The petitioner further argues that the 1 st , 2 nd and 3 rd respondents cannot dispute that they collected hundreds of millions of shillings from the revellers and sponsors and full refund of funds collected together with compensation for losses suffered will not be adverse as they still raised funds from sponsors of which they are not seeking any refunds.
The 1 st Respondent’s Case
24. Grace Wambui, the 1 st respondent’s Group Head of Legal swore the 1 st Respondent’s replying affidavit on 20 th April 2023.
25. The 1 st Respondent acknowledged that it announced a partnership for an event known as second edition of the “Stanbic Yetu Festival” which took place on Saturday 10 th June 2023 in Uhuru Gardens, Nairobi. The advertisement with the sponsor provided that there would be three categories of tickets namely regular tickets for Kshs. 8,000/-, VIP tickets for Kshs. 15,000/- and VVIP tickets for Kshs. 30,000/- which would be purchased from
www.ticketyetu.com on the terms and conditions provided for therein. The event disclaimer categorically provided that:
“By purchasing tickets & attending the event, you agree to be bound by these terms and conditions for the ENTIRE duration of the event. For any queries, incident report please contact our events team RAL immediately.’’
26. Further every ticket purchased had expressly stated particular terms and conditions binding on the ticket holder that:
“You voluntarily assume all risks whether occurring prior to, during and after this event. You agree to release the organization facility, participants, Ticket Yetu and their respective affiliates and representatives from responsibility and related claims.”
27. The deponent further reveals that the terms and conditions governing the issuance of tickets was provided on the ticket yetu website on https://www.ticketyetu.com/terms-and-condition
28. The deponent asserts that pursuant to Clause 20 of the Terms and Conditions, which was binding between the ticket holder and the event organiser, it provided the appropriate dispute resolution mechanism commencing with amicable dispute resolution and culminating in arbitration in the event of no agreement being reached within 28 days. As such, she argues that the petition is fatally defective as it relates to a contractual dispute between the individual ticket holder and the 1 st respondent. Furthermore, the court’s jurisdiction has
been improperly invoked by the petitioner and therefore the court lacks jurisdiction to hear the instant petition.
29. The deponent asserts that prior to the events, the 1 st respondent engaged various service providers to provide the required amenities including sound system, furniture, security scanning machines, mobile toilets, urinals and food vendors.
30. The 2 nd respondent in conjunction with Professional Events & Décor, Homeland Itoya Events and Staarab Lounges Ltd provided the technical system including the technical visual, sound, lighting, power, technical support, transport and crew. The deponent avers that there were 70 washrooms available, tents that could accommodate 6,926 persons, seating areas that could accommodate 6,270 persons, bar areas that could accommodate 8,100 persons and different food vendors that could accommodate 11,100 persons. She further avers that the 1 st respondent engaged Homeland Itoya Events, simply Sophisticated Events and Infinite Planners to provide tents and furniture. Additionally, Four winds Consultants provided the artist kit to ensure the success of the event. The 1 st respondent further engaged the services of On the Mark Security Limited which provided
different personnel to ensure that the venue of the event was fully secured. As regards food vendors, the deponent avers that the 1 st respondent engaged the services of Kenchic Limited, Nababurger, Sultan Meat Packers t/a The Artisan Butcher & Deli and the Rockbern Coffee Group Limited who provided quality food and beverages at the event. The 1 st respondent entered into a Service Level Agreement with the 2 nd respondent which provided the equipment as per Schedule 1 of the Agreement and the 2 nd respondent proceeded to set up the event as per the terms of the agreement.
31. The deponent avers that there is no evidence that the main area screens failed to project during Sauti Sol and Boys II Men performance as the screens that were mounted were new and of good quality. The screen and sound issues were immediately rectified. As per the technical rider issued by the 2 nd respondent (mixer/music console mixer, speakers, screens) the organizers provided the state of art equipment and ensured that it matched Boyz II Men’s requirements. Further, regarding the events lay out and floor plan, the deponent states that the stage was not far and invisible to the revellers as alleged. She states that the 1 st respondent provided pictures of how the venue looked like and the set up was properly done and there were proper demarcations in place to separate VVIP, VIP and the main arena with clear pathways in place to allow free movement of revellers. The deponent adds
that the tent/doe provided was the largest and spacious dome in the country. Further, she states that there were extra tents behind the dome and on all sides of the dome to cater for any extra people. Regarding the seats, the seats were an added advantage and not a requirement as most events do not provide seats for the main arena areas. Nonetheless the organizers made adequate arrangement for the seats and delivered on a service that is not normally provided. On the issue of reserved seats, the deponent avers that the only seats that were reserved were for the County Governor and invited guests and all the other seats were free siting and were on first come first serve basis. Regarding the sanitary facilities, the deponent states that adequate measures were put in place to address the same as the organizer had an arrangement with the suppliers to ensure cleanliness of the toilets and ensure that they had adequate water. The sanitary facilities were far away to maintain cleanliness and ensure that the toilets were away from the food serving points to prevent any odour emanating from the toilets and maintain hygiene. Regarding food and drinks, the deponent states that there was a variety of food and alcohol vendors to serve different tastes of the revellers. Further regarding security and crowd control. the deponent states that the organisers provided adequate security as per the services offered by the service provider. She further avers that no evidence in form of an occurrence
book has been tendered in terms of revellers having been robbed or P3 Form has been produced to prove the injuries or medical report. The deponent argues that in organizing such a massive event, some lapses may arise and the organizer may in one way or another fail to meet the expectations of each and every reveller.
32. The deponent states that the complaints have not been supported by any photos taken by the revellers to show the sorrow state of affairs. Further, the revellers have not produced their tickets paid for the event and were present during the event. Additionally, the deponent argues that the emails produced by the petitioner are inadmissible as they do not conform to the mandatory provisions of Section 106B of the Evidence Act as no certificate of electronic evidence has been accompanied the impugned emails and therefore devoid of any probative value.
33. The deponent argues that the petition offends the doctrine of exhaustion that demands that a case should not be resolved by deciding a constitutional petition if it can be resolved in some other fashion. Furthermore, the dispute arises from a contractual engagement between ticket holders and the event organisers. Additionally, the petition offends the doctrine of contractual
avoidance as the petitioner cannot canvass constitutional issues in breach of contractual obligations that provide for dispute resolution resulting from any purported breaches of contract between the parties to the contract and in any event, the petitioner lacks locus standi as it was not a party to the said contract. The doctrine of privity of contract postulates that a contract cannot confer rights or impose obligations on any person other than the parties to the contract and that accordingly a contract can be enforced amongst the parties. The deponent argues that the petitioner is not a consumer as defined by Section 2 of the Consumer Protection Act and therefore lacks locus standi to institute a class action suit in accordance with section 4 of the Consumer Protection Act.
The 2 nd Respondent’s Case
34. Michael Rabar, the Chief Executive Officer of the 2 nd respondent swore the affidavit and depones that the 2 nd respondent entered into a level service agreement with the 1 st respondent whereby their obligations were clearly set out under clause 2 which was to provide the 1 st respondent with electronic media devices and equipment that included an audio and visual component. The deponent asserts that the 2 nd respondent was not involved in other logistical or planning that went into the festival.
35. The deponent reveals that the 2 nd respondent provided a quote to the 1 st respondent on 24 th April 2023 on the equipment that it was meant to provide. The quote was based on the assumption that the maximum number attended would be in the range of 5000 people. The 1 st respondent issued a purchase order confirmation on 30 th May 2023 as per the quote the 2 nd respondent had issued and the equipment which the 2 nd respondent provided would cater for the range of concert goers as had been projected. He further avers that the equipment provided by the 2 nd respondent performed as expected and it may have been the equipment of other sound providers who the 1 st respondent engaged such as B2M sound engineers to operate their equipment that had issues.
36. Regarding the allegations of the screens being small and going off, the deponent avers that the equipment they provided complied with the specifications under the agreement; the screens were of sufficient size and placed at strategic locations to be viewed by the estimated range of people indicated in the agreement and as per the agreement there were 4 screens which were 4 metres by 3 metres each and were sufficient for the estimated range of attendees. For the sound quality being poor, the deponent avers that their equipment met the specifications under the agreement; the sound
quality was up to the required standard and the placement of the media centre and the communication tower were done in consensus with the 1 st respondent as all the layout plans were provided by the 1 st respondent.
37. The deponent states that at the beginning of the Boyz II Men performance, there was a less than 5-minute delay as the sound engineer who had been engaged by Boyz II Men was not conversant with operating the equipment and after he was shown how, the issue of the sound was resolved and the concert progressed well. He further avers that the audio-visual equipment provided by the 2 nd respondent was adequate to cater for the range of people who were expected to attend as per the agreement.
The 3 rd Respondent’s Case
38. Marion Karogo, a Senior Manager in the Brand & Marketing Department of the 3 rd respondent swore the affidavit and depones that the 3 rd respondent entered into a Sponsorship Agreement with the 1 st respondent dated 10 th April 2023 to facilitate the Stanbic Yetu Festival. As per paragraph 2.3.1 of the said agreement, the 3 rd respondent was the concert’s title sponsor effectively granting the 3 rd respondent the exclusive right to have its name featured in the title for the Yetu Festival and benefit from defined publicity and brand
placement opportunities. The deponent avers that the 3 rd respondent’s role as the title sponsor was limited to provision of finances alongside other sponsors for the purposes of organizing the event as captured in clause 2.3 and 2.4 of the Sponsorship Agreement that clearly states the scope of the contractual relationship and responsibilities of the 1st and 3rd respondents.
39. The deponent outlines that the 3 rd respondent never participated in the planning and execution of the following activities complained of by the petitioner;- the sale and categorization of the tickets for the subject event; organization of the different zones at the grounds for the different ticket categories i.e Main arena, VIP, VVIP; organizing and setting up the pathways and the toilets for use by revellers at the event; the set up of sound equipment and big screens for use at the event; the stage set up i.e the main arena and media centre set up; the tents, seating arrangements and alleyways at the grounds; the crowd arrangement protocols and security arrangements for the subject event; the set up of the communication tower at the event and the sanitary management for the facilities i.e toilets in use at the grounds. The deponent reiterates that the 3 rd respondent’s role did not extend to the logistical execution of the subject event and therefore it was not involved in the categorization and placement of the revellers in the different zones for
regular, VIP and VVIP ticket holders and would therefore not be legally liable for the events that occurred on the said 10 th June 2023. He further avers that it is not true that the revellers holding VIP tickets were barred from accessing the VIP areas due to the alleged claim that the VIP area was exclusively reserved for the 3 rd respondent’s staff.
40. The deponent affirms that the 3 rd respondent issued a statement dated 16 th June 2023 affirming that it was the title sponsor and it indicated that it would engage the 1 st respondent as the organizer of the concert to identify the root cause of the issues presented. He further avers that the 3 rd respondent takes its corporate social responsibility seriously and re-assured the public of the said position through its statement dated 16 th June 2023 by indicating that it remains committed to supporting the development of the creative industry, encouragement of partnerships and moulding a unique cultural identity through social interactions.
41. The deponent argues that save for the issues complained of which were beyond the 3 rd respondent’s responsibility or expertise as title sponsor, the subject event achieved the test of reasonable quality as anticipated by Article 46 of the Constitution.
42. The petitioner filed a Further affidavit dated 30 th June 2025 and states that the 1 st respondent admits that the concert’s capacity was 6,926 with seats accommodating approximately 6,270 thus they deliberately planned to oversell the concert given that the 2 nd respondent claimed that it provided audio/visual for an estimated 5,000 people. He further states that whilst the 1 st respondent provides the expected numbers, they have failed to reveal the total number of tickets including the complimentary ones, issued for the concert which is intentional as it would indicate that the concert was oversold hence the terrible experience of the revellers.
43. The petitioner reiterates that as a consumer rights advocacy organisation, they advocate for remedial action as where services provided do not meet the description, the appropriate remedy is monetary compensation. He further states that the 2 nd respondent admits to providing sound and sound system failing but tries to minimize the role of the failure. That notwithstanding, the issue of sound failure and layout failure has already been admitted by the 1 st respondent. Furthermore, the apologies of the 1 st and 3 rd respondents confirm that the audio visual and sound set up was a major failure accompanied by a promise to improve future concerts. The petitioner argues that the range of people for the equipment provided as 5,000. Considering the number of
people estimated by the 1 st respondent, there was a clear mismatch as the 1 st respondent planned for 6,920 while procuring audio visual services for 5,000. The difference of nearly 2000 indicates a lack of goodwill regarding that critical aspect of the concert.
44. The petitioner states that the 3 rd respondent in its apology dated 16 th June 2023, stated that it was a partner in the event and that was the understanding by revellers and thus their attempts to avoid liability must not be accepted. Further, the 3 rd respondent is aware it possesses goodwill and is a reputable bank targeting elite clients. it thus exploited the goodwill to become the title sponsor, appealing to a class of revellers considered premium as the ticket prices ranged from Kshs. 8,000/- to Kshs. 30,000/- clearly indicating the demographic it expected to attract. The petitioner further states that the apology given acknowledges that “Key Elements” of the event fell short proving that the 3 rd respondent was aware which amounts to a fundamental breach but at the same time expect the revellers who had spent their hard earned money to accept the apology as sufficient.
45. The petition was disposed of by way of written submissions.
Petitioner’s Submissions
46. The petitioner identified three issues for determination as follows; doctrine of constitutional avoidance , violation of consumer rights to quality, information and safety and, appropriate reliefs .
47. On the doctrine of constitutional avoidance, the petitioner referred to the case of Consumer Federation of Kenya (COFEK) (Suing through its officials namely Stephen Mutoro, Ephraim Kanake and Henry Ochieng) vs Radio Africa Events/Group & 3 Others, Competition Authority of Kenya & Another (Interested Parties) [2024] KEHC 8254 (KLR) where the court held:-
The contractual procedure would only apply and bind parties to a contract. It has not been determined if the petitioner and the 1 st respondent have that kind of relationship, it is subject to proof.
48. The petitioner argued that the 1 st respondent did not provide any evidence of a cont
[...truncated]
1. The petition dated 19 th June 2023 is supported by the petitioner’s affidavit and the further affidavit dated 30 th June 2025.
2. The petition challenges the manner in which Stanbic Yetu Festival was conducted by the respondents. The petitioners contend that the event substantially departed from what had been advertised and was instead marked by widespread disorganisation including chaotic seating arrangements, poor sound and visual quality, obstructed views, limited performance, congestion, poor crowd control and inadequate sanitary facilities. In addition, the petitioner pleaded that there was a complete
absence of proper security measures which led to loss of revellers personal properties including mobile phones, national identity documents and ATMs.
3. According to the petitioners, these shortcomings taken cumulatively denied the revellers who were the consumers of the service the unique and unforgettable live music experience that the promoters had in their advertisements promised hence the petitioner avers constituted a violation of the consumer rights of the participants.
4. Consequently, the petitioner seeks the following reliefs: -
a) That this suit be declared a public interest and a class action suit in the meaning of Section 4 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2012.
b) A declaration be and is hereby issued that the actions of the 1 st , 2 nd and 3 rd respondents of failure to organize a concert of reasonable quality by failing to provide security, proper sanitation, quality audio, value for money and visual playback is a violation of Articles 46(1) of the Constitution and the Consumer Protection Act, 2012 at Sections 5 and 12.
c) A declaration be and is hereby issued that the actions of the 1 st , 2 nd and 3 rd respondents in admitting their failure in providing a concert of reasonable quality to its consumers but failing to offer compensation for the loss suffered by its customers is a violation of Article 46(1) of the Constitution.
d) A declaration be and is hereby issued that the actions of the 1 st , 2 nd and 3 rd respondents in failing to protect the health and safety of the members of the petitioner and other consumers during the Stanbic Yetu Festival is an infringement of Articles 46 of the Constitution.
e) That the court do and hereby issue an order directing the 1 st , 2 nd and 3 rd respondents to issue compensation to their customers who purchased the VIP and regular tickets for loss suffered due to their failure to comply with Article 46 of the Constitution.
f) The 1 st interested party be and is hereby ordered to formulate policies, regulatory framework and enforcement mechanisms in compliance with Article 46 of the Constitution that ensures organizers of public events and concerts have in place refund policies and measurable quality assurance mechanisms that protect consumers.
g) The 2 nd interested party be ordered and is hereby ordered to formulate policies, regulatory framework and enforcement mechanisms in compliance with Article 46 of the Constitution that ensure the public health and safety of consumers is attained during public entertainment events.
h) That this Honourable Court be pleased to grant such further orders as it may deem just and appropriate.
i) That the cost of this petition be met by the 1 st , 2 nd and 3 rd respondents.
5. In opposition to the petition, the 1 st , 2 nd and 3 rd respondents filed Replying Affidavits dated 11 th February 2024, 23rd May 2025 and 13 th February 2025 respectively.
The Petitioner’s Case
6. The petitioner is registered as a society under the Societies Act, Cap 108 on 26 th March 2010. It is an independent, self funded, multi sectorial, non political and apex non profit federation committed to ensure consumer protection, education, research, consultancy, litigation, anti-counterfeits campaign and
business rating on consumerism and customer care issues. The petitioner filed the instant petition on its own behalf and on behalf of its members and in the
interest of Kenyans who are discontented with the blatant disregard of consumer rights by private entities and in the public interest bearing its responsibility under Articles 3, 10, 22, 46 and 258 of the Constitution to respect, uphold and defend the Constitution.
7. On 20 th April 2023, the 3 rd respondent ran an advertisement dubbed “Second Edition of Stanbic Yetu Festival” which was to be held on 10 th June 2023 at Uhuru Gardens Nairobi. The advertisement indicated that the event was to be run by the 3 rd respondent in partnership with the 1 st respondent.
8. In marketing the event, the 1 st respondent was responsible through its events division “RA (Radio Africa) Events” where it boasted that RA Events had organized over two hundred and fifty events featuring local and international artists where they offer international and local artists booking, event management and events consultancy. The petitioner argues that with the said kind of experience, they were aware and ought to have been aware of what is required and expected in events organizing as well as public interest thereof. Further, the 3 rd respondent went ahead to promise that it would give Kenyans
a unique, unforgettable and authentic live music experience that would leave a lasting impression.
9. The petitioner avers that the 1 st respondent ran advertisements on their various media houses and social media platforms selling tickets in three main categories namely; - the main area ticket going for Kshs. 8,000/-, the VIP ticket going for Kshs. 15,000/- and the VVIP ticket going as a pair of Kshs. 30,000/- for Kshs. 60,000/-.
10. The regular ticket allowed a person entry to the venue, the VIP ticket allowed entry, a VIP dinner experience, separate lavatories and a separate designated seating area and the VVIP ticket allowed entry, VVIP dinner experience, a separate designated entrance and parking area, separate designated lavatories, a prepaid host bar and close proximity to the stage .
11. The rigorous advertisements by the 1 st and 2 nd respondents saw all tickets all the tickets were sold out, a fact confirmed by the 1 st and 2 nd Respondents.
12. On the day of the concert, ticket holders of the different categories who include petitioners’ members went for the Stanbic Yetu festival . However,
to their shock and disappointment, things were not as promised. The petitioner discloses that it received numerous complaints from its members and other revellers about the event as having been chaotic, disorganized, disorderly, unsafe, health hazard and full of stress instead of the entertainment they had hoped for.
13. That contrary to the marketing materials by the 1 st and 3 rd respondents, the categorization of regulars, VIP and VVIP was non-existent due to lack of proper physical controls to ensure participants remained in the category they had paid for and partly due to unscrupulous security teams that were taking inducements from some of the revellers who wanted to be moved from regular to VIP and from VIP to VVIP during the event.
14. As a result, there was extreme congestion which made it difficult to access sanitary facilities, food or revellers having a clear view of the main stage or following up on the screen. Free movement within the venue became impossible as pathways were blocked. According to the petitioner, with only six washrooms available, many people who visited the washroom found themselves unable to find their way back to their seats. The event organisers, the 1 st and 2 nd respondents, completely lost control and could no longer
manage the swelling crowd. Many other participants ended up standing for several hours while others lost their friends/kin in the chaotic event.
15. The petitioner avers that participants had legitimate expectations to watch “Boys II Men” directly as promised by the 1 st , 2 nd and 3 rd respondents but were unable to do so as they could neither view the stage nor watch from the screens as the equally small screens went off for the entire first performance. Further, the screens and sound system provided were of extremely poor quality with the instruments overpowering the vocals. This resulted in a frustrating experience of revellers trying to guess the songs or only recognizing them once the crowd started singing along. In fact, according to the petitioner, the concert performance was cut short at the main arena when the small screens failed in the middle of the Sauti sol performance.
16. The petitioner further averred that revellers confirmed in writing that the media centre was mounted right in the middle of the venue which effectively obstructed the free view of the main performance stage. The petitioner states that the view of the stage was completely obstructed from all angles by elevated media stand. Compounding the problems, a communication tower was inconveniently placed in the middle of the viewing area, directly in front of the stage and which added to obstructing the view of those who had paid
for regular tickets. Jostling for the view meant people standing and others standing on chairs or any higher ground including on trees.
17. The petitioner further reveals that a significant number of those who paid for the VIP ticket still failed to find a seat. Several VIPs were dismayed to discover that the front section of the same VIP area had been exclusively reserved for the staff of the 3 rd respondent who was the main sponsor. The said discriminatory practice, contrary to Article 27(4) of the Constitution, not only compromised the farness of the event but also left affected revellers feeling marginalized and prejudiced against. Further, the 1 st and 3 rd respondents did not disclose to the revellers that purchasers of a VIP ticket would also be required to “pre book” seats hence those who arrived at the venue at 4pm could not seat on the available seats as they were informed the same had been reserved for other persons who were yet to arrive at the venue.
18. Additionally, the performance by “Boys II Men” was disappointing as they only performed very few songs, spending a considerable amount of time on cover songs, which is not what the revellers had paid for.
19. Moreover. the conditions of the toilets were appalling. Not only were they inadequate but also filled to capacity. In one instance a lady attempted to
flush the toilet leading to an overflow of blue toilet liquid and tissue paper rushing towards others waiting on the long queue, an experience that was particularly inhumane and a public health hazard.
20. The petitioner states that was a complete absence of proper security measures which led to loss of personal properties including mobile phones, national identity documents and ATMs. The said incidences have been reported at Langata Police Station.
21. The petitioners contend that these issues left many revellers feeling deceived and cheated because the “Boys II Men” concert was a complete disaster and an unjustifiable waste of hard-earned monies from unsuspecting Kenyan consumers (revellers) who were duped by the 1 st , 2 nd and 3 rd respondents.
22. The petitioner contended that under relentless public pressure, particularly from social media and print media, the 1 st , 2 nd and 3 rd respondents issued a press conference on Monday, 12 th June, 2023. In that statement, which they did not deny the numerous challenges that arose at the event, they unreservedly apologised for the failure to meet expectations.
23. The petitioner argues that pursuant to Article 46(1)(d) of the Constitution , an apology is not enough and compensation in such instances is an absolute right and entitlement to the victims by the aggressors. The petitioner further argues that the 1 st , 2 nd and 3 rd respondents cannot dispute that they collected hundreds of millions of shillings from the revellers and sponsors and full refund of funds collected together with compensation for losses suffered will not be adverse as they still raised funds from sponsors of which they are not seeking any refunds.
The 1 st Respondent’s Case
24. Grace Wambui, the 1 st respondent’s Group Head of Legal swore the 1 st Respondent’s replying affidavit on 20 th April 2023.
25. The 1 st Respondent acknowledged that it announced a partnership for an event known as second edition of the “Stanbic Yetu Festival” which took place on Saturday 10 th June 2023 in Uhuru Gardens, Nairobi. The advertisement with the sponsor provided that there would be three categories of tickets namely regular tickets for Kshs. 8,000/-, VIP tickets for Kshs. 15,000/- and VVIP tickets for Kshs. 30,000/- which would be purchased from
www.ticketyetu.com on the terms and conditions provided for therein. The event disclaimer categorically provided that:
“By purchasing tickets & attending the event, you agree to be bound by these terms and conditions for the ENTIRE duration of the event. For any queries, incident report please contact our events team RAL immediately.’’
26. Further every ticket purchased had expressly stated particular terms and conditions binding on the ticket holder that:
“You voluntarily assume all risks whether occurring prior to, during and after this event. You agree to release the organization facility, participants, Ticket Yetu and their respective affiliates and representatives from responsibility and related claims.”
27. The deponent further reveals that the terms and conditions governing the issuance of tickets was provided on the ticket yetu website on https://www.ticketyetu.com/terms-and-condition
28. The deponent asserts that pursuant to Clause 20 of the Terms and Conditions, which was binding between the ticket holder and the event organiser, it provided the appropriate dispute resolution mechanism commencing with amicable dispute resolution and culminating in arbitration in the event of no agreement being reached within 28 days. As such, she argues that the petition is fatally defective as it relates to a contractual dispute between the individual ticket holder and the 1 st respondent. Furthermore, the court’s jurisdiction has
been improperly invoked by the petitioner and therefore the court lacks jurisdiction to hear the instant petition.
29. The deponent asserts that prior to the events, the 1 st respondent engaged various service providers to provide the required amenities including sound system, furniture, security scanning machines, mobile toilets, urinals and food vendors.
30. The 2 nd respondent in conjunction with Professional Events & Décor, Homeland Itoya Events and Staarab Lounges Ltd provided the technical system including the technical visual, sound, lighting, power, technical support, transport and crew. The deponent avers that there were 70 washrooms available, tents that could accommodate 6,926 persons, seating areas that could accommodate 6,270 persons, bar areas that could accommodate 8,100 persons and different food vendors that could accommodate 11,100 persons. She further avers that the 1 st respondent engaged Homeland Itoya Events, simply Sophisticated Events and Infinite Planners to provide tents and furniture. Additionally, Four winds Consultants provided the artist kit to ensure the success of the event. The 1 st respondent further engaged the services of On the Mark Security Limited which provided
different personnel to ensure that the venue of the event was fully secured. As regards food vendors, the deponent avers that the 1 st respondent engaged the services of Kenchic Limited, Nababurger, Sultan Meat Packers t/a The Artisan Butcher & Deli and the Rockbern Coffee Group Limited who provided quality food and beverages at the event. The 1 st respondent entered into a Service Level Agreement with the 2 nd respondent which provided the equipment as per Schedule 1 of the Agreement and the 2 nd respondent proceeded to set up the event as per the terms of the agreement.
31. The deponent avers that there is no evidence that the main area screens failed to project during Sauti Sol and Boys II Men performance as the screens that were mounted were new and of good quality. The screen and sound issues were immediately rectified. As per the technical rider issued by the 2 nd respondent (mixer/music console mixer, speakers, screens) the organizers provided the state of art equipment and ensured that it matched Boyz II Men’s requirements. Further, regarding the events lay out and floor plan, the deponent states that the stage was not far and invisible to the revellers as alleged. She states that the 1 st respondent provided pictures of how the venue looked like and the set up was properly done and there were proper demarcations in place to separate VVIP, VIP and the main arena with clear pathways in place to allow free movement of revellers. The deponent adds
that the tent/doe provided was the largest and spacious dome in the country. Further, she states that there were extra tents behind the dome and on all sides of the dome to cater for any extra people. Regarding the seats, the seats were an added advantage and not a requirement as most events do not provide seats for the main arena areas. Nonetheless the organizers made adequate arrangement for the seats and delivered on a service that is not normally provided. On the issue of reserved seats, the deponent avers that the only seats that were reserved were for the County Governor and invited guests and all the other seats were free siting and were on first come first serve basis. Regarding the sanitary facilities, the deponent states that adequate measures were put in place to address the same as the organizer had an arrangement with the suppliers to ensure cleanliness of the toilets and ensure that they had adequate water. The sanitary facilities were far away to maintain cleanliness and ensure that the toilets were away from the food serving points to prevent any odour emanating from the toilets and maintain hygiene. Regarding food and drinks, the deponent states that there was a variety of food and alcohol vendors to serve different tastes of the revellers. Further regarding security and crowd control. the deponent states that the organisers provided adequate security as per the services offered by the service provider. She further avers that no evidence in form of an occurrence
book has been tendered in terms of revellers having been robbed or P3 Form has been produced to prove the injuries or medical report. The deponent argues that in organizing such a massive event, some lapses may arise and the organizer may in one way or another fail to meet the expectations of each and every reveller.
32. The deponent states that the complaints have not been supported by any photos taken by the revellers to show the sorrow state of affairs. Further, the revellers have not produced their tickets paid for the event and were present during the event. Additionally, the deponent argues that the emails produced by the petitioner are inadmissible as they do not conform to the mandatory provisions of Section 106B of the Evidence Act as no certificate of electronic evidence has been accompanied the impugned emails and therefore devoid of any probative value.
33. The deponent argues that the petition offends the doctrine of exhaustion that demands that a case should not be resolved by deciding a constitutional petition if it can be resolved in some other fashion. Furthermore, the dispute arises from a contractual engagement between ticket holders and the event organisers. Additionally, the petition offends the doctrine of contractual
avoidance as the petitioner cannot canvass constitutional issues in breach of contractual obligations that provide for dispute resolution resulting from any purported breaches of contract between the parties to the contract and in any event, the petitioner lacks locus standi as it was not a party to the said contract. The doctrine of privity of contract postulates that a contract cannot confer rights or impose obligations on any person other than the parties to the contract and that accordingly a contract can be enforced amongst the parties. The deponent argues that the petitioner is not a consumer as defined by Section 2 of the Consumer Protection Act and therefore lacks locus standi to institute a class action suit in accordance with section 4 of the Consumer Protection Act.
The 2 nd Respondent’s Case
34. Michael Rabar, the Chief Executive Officer of the 2 nd respondent swore the affidavit and depones that the 2 nd respondent entered into a level service agreement with the 1 st respondent whereby their obligations were clearly set out under clause 2 which was to provide the 1 st respondent with electronic media devices and equipment that included an audio and visual component. The deponent asserts that the 2 nd respondent was not involved in other logistical or planning that went into the festival.
35. The deponent reveals that the 2 nd respondent provided a quote to the 1 st respondent on 24 th April 2023 on the equipment that it was meant to provide. The quote was based on the assumption that the maximum number attended would be in the range of 5000 people. The 1 st respondent issued a purchase order confirmation on 30 th May 2023 as per the quote the 2 nd respondent had issued and the equipment which the 2 nd respondent provided would cater for the range of concert goers as had been projected. He further avers that the equipment provided by the 2 nd respondent performed as expected and it may have been the equipment of other sound providers who the 1 st respondent engaged such as B2M sound engineers to operate their equipment that had issues.
36. Regarding the allegations of the screens being small and going off, the deponent avers that the equipment they provided complied with the specifications under the agreement; the screens were of sufficient size and placed at strategic locations to be viewed by the estimated range of people indicated in the agreement and as per the agreement there were 4 screens which were 4 metres by 3 metres each and were sufficient for the estimated range of attendees. For the sound quality being poor, the deponent avers that their equipment met the specifications under the agreement; the sound
quality was up to the required standard and the placement of the media centre and the communication tower were done in consensus with the 1 st respondent as all the layout plans were provided by the 1 st respondent.
37. The deponent states that at the beginning of the Boyz II Men performance, there was a less than 5-minute delay as the sound engineer who had been engaged by Boyz II Men was not conversant with operating the equipment and after he was shown how, the issue of the sound was resolved and the concert progressed well. He further avers that the audio-visual equipment provided by the 2 nd respondent was adequate to cater for the range of people who were expected to attend as per the agreement.
The 3 rd Respondent’s Case
38. Marion Karogo, a Senior Manager in the Brand & Marketing Department of the 3 rd respondent swore the affidavit and depones that the 3 rd respondent entered into a Sponsorship Agreement with the 1 st respondent dated 10 th April 2023 to facilitate the Stanbic Yetu Festival. As per paragraph 2.3.1 of the said agreement, the 3 rd respondent was the concert’s title sponsor effectively granting the 3 rd respondent the exclusive right to have its name featured in the title for the Yetu Festival and benefit from defined publicity and brand
placement opportunities. The deponent avers that the 3 rd respondent’s role as the title sponsor was limited to provision of finances alongside other sponsors for the purposes of organizing the event as captured in clause 2.3 and 2.4 of the Sponsorship Agreement that clearly states the scope of the contractual relationship and responsibilities of the 1st and 3rd respondents.
39. The deponent outlines that the 3 rd respondent never participated in the planning and execution of the following activities complained of by the petitioner;- the sale and categorization of the tickets for the subject event; organization of the different zones at the grounds for the different ticket categories i.e Main arena, VIP, VVIP; organizing and setting up the pathways and the toilets for use by revellers at the event; the set up of sound equipment and big screens for use at the event; the stage set up i.e the main arena and media centre set up; the tents, seating arrangements and alleyways at the grounds; the crowd arrangement protocols and security arrangements for the subject event; the set up of the communication tower at the event and the sanitary management for the facilities i.e toilets in use at the grounds. The deponent reiterates that the 3 rd respondent’s role did not extend to the logistical execution of the subject event and therefore it was not involved in the categorization and placement of the revellers in the different zones for
regular, VIP and VVIP ticket holders and would therefore not be legally liable for the events that occurred on the said 10 th June 2023. He further avers that it is not true that the revellers holding VIP tickets were barred from accessing the VIP areas due to the alleged claim that the VIP area was exclusively reserved for the 3 rd respondent’s staff.
40. The deponent affirms that the 3 rd respondent issued a statement dated 16 th June 2023 affirming that it was the title sponsor and it indicated that it would engage the 1 st respondent as the organizer of the concert to identify the root cause of the issues presented. He further avers that the 3 rd respondent takes its corporate social responsibility seriously and re-assured the public of the said position through its statement dated 16 th June 2023 by indicating that it remains committed to supporting the development of the creative industry, encouragement of partnerships and moulding a unique cultural identity through social interactions.
41. The deponent argues that save for the issues complained of which were beyond the 3 rd respondent’s responsibility or expertise as title sponsor, the subject event achieved the test of reasonable quality as anticipated by Article 46 of the Constitution.
42. The petitioner filed a Further affidavit dated 30 th June 2025 and states that the 1 st respondent admits that the concert’s capacity was 6,926 with seats accommodating approximately 6,270 thus they deliberately planned to oversell the concert given that the 2 nd respondent claimed that it provided audio/visual for an estimated 5,000 people. He further states that whilst the 1 st respondent provides the expected numbers, they have failed to reveal the total number of tickets including the complimentary ones, issued for the concert which is intentional as it would indicate that the concert was oversold hence the terrible experience of the revellers.
43. The petitioner reiterates that as a consumer rights advocacy organisation, they advocate for remedial action as where services provided do not meet the description, the appropriate remedy is monetary compensation. He further states that the 2 nd respondent admits to providing sound and sound system failing but tries to minimize the role of the failure. That notwithstanding, the issue of sound failure and layout failure has already been admitted by the 1 st respondent. Furthermore, the apologies of the 1 st and 3 rd respondents confirm that the audio visual and sound set up was a major failure accompanied by a promise to improve future concerts. The petitioner argues that the range of people for the equipment provided as 5,000. Considering the number of
people estimated by the 1 st respondent, there was a clear mismatch as the 1 st respondent planned for 6,920 while procuring audio visual services for 5,000. The difference of nearly 2000 indicates a lack of goodwill regarding that critical aspect of the concert.
44. The petitioner states that the 3 rd respondent in its apology dated 16 th June 2023, stated that it was a partner in the event and that was the understanding by revellers and thus their attempts to avoid liability must not be accepted. Further, the 3 rd respondent is aware it possesses goodwill and is a reputable bank targeting elite clients. it thus exploited the goodwill to become the title sponsor, appealing to a class of revellers considered premium as the ticket prices ranged from Kshs. 8,000/- to Kshs. 30,000/- clearly indicating the demographic it expected to attract. The petitioner further states that the apology given acknowledges that “Key Elements” of the event fell short proving that the 3 rd respondent was aware which amounts to a fundamental breach but at the same time expect the revellers who had spent their hard earned money to accept the apology as sufficient.
45. The petition was disposed of by way of written submissions.
Petitioner’s Submissions
46. The petitioner identified three issues for determination as follows; doctrine of constitutional avoidance , violation of consumer rights to quality, information and safety and, appropriate reliefs .
47. On the doctrine of constitutional avoidance, the petitioner referred to the case of Consumer Federation of Kenya (COFEK) (Suing through its officials namely Stephen Mutoro, Ephraim Kanake and Henry Ochieng) vs Radio Africa Events/Group & 3 Others, Competition Authority of Kenya & Another (Interested Parties) [2024] KEHC 8254 (KLR) where the court held:-
The contractual procedure would only apply and bind parties to a contract. It has not been determined if the petitioner and the 1 st respondent have that kind of relationship, it is subject to proof.
48. The petitioner argued that the 1 st respondent did not provide any evidence of a cont
[...truncated]