1. This is a Ruling with respect to the Oral Application by Counsel for the Petitioner/Applicant made on 2 nd March 2026 by which Counsel for the Petitioner/Applicant sought leave of the Court for the Petitioner to deploy and utilize audio-visual recording of the court proceedings.
2. Specifically, the Petitioner/Applicant wishes to record to the Judge, opposing Counsel, and the remaining witnesses of the Respondents. The basis of the prayer for leave is that Counsel for the Petitioner/Applicant has developed a medical condition that limits his ability to take notes of the proceedings. Thus, it is contended by the Petitioner/Applicant that the audio-visual recordings would enable her Counsel to mitigate the effects of the medical condition and be able to have an audio-visual record in the place of a written record.
3. The Petitioner/Applicant also relied on the alleged discrepancies in the draft typed proceedings as a further reason why an audio-visual recording of the proceedings is necessary.
4. In urging the Court to allow the Oral Application, Counsel for the Petitioner/Applicant closed by stating that the Assisting Counsel who had been taking notes on his behalf would soon be unavailable, meaning that audio-visual recording would be the only means by which he could have a record of what transpired in a particular court session.
5. The Oral Application was strenuously opposed by the Respondents. They argued that the proposed change would place them at a disadvantage since they did not enjoy a similar facility during the Petitioner’s case. Further, the Respondents argue that audio recording alone would suffice, and there is no need for the added aspect of video recording in order to achieve the outcome sought by the Petitioner’s Counsel.
6. Lastly, the Respondents raised issues of breach of privacy, data protection concerns, and the possibility that the audio-visual recordings may ‘leak’ to the public. The Respondents rested by underscoring that to their minds the Oral Application defeats the very essence of having the proceedings conducted to the exclusion of the public and persons unrelated to the matter.
7. In rebuttal, the Petitioner/Applicant noted that the recordings would be strictly used by himself and persons within his law firm, and they would not be divulged to any person outside that law firm. It was also argued in rebuttal that access to justice for persons with disabilities or medical conditions that impede them is a fundamental right that should be reasonably accommodated by the courts.
8. Having heard the parties, and after considering the applicable caselaw, I am satisfied that there is a relatively simple and straightforward avenue by which the Counsel for the Petitioner’s request can be accommodated while also securing the interests and concerns raised by the Respondents.
9. That avenue is that for the remainder of these proceedings the hearings and highlighting of written submissions be conducted via the Microsoft Teams Platform, but with a proviso that the virtual sessions shall remain closed to the public and to persons not related to the case. The Court would utilize a ‘lobby’ for such sessions, to give full effect to this proviso.
10. The utilization of the Microsoft Teams Platform would allow the Petitioner’s Counsel to have an audio-visual recording of the proceedings vide a platform that is widely used by the Judiciary; with the added advantage that the Counsel for the Petitioner would be able to employ Artificial Intelligence tools or automated recording and transcription features, thus saving Counsel from the burden of manual transcription.
11. On their part, the Respondents would be heard on a platform that thousands of other litigants routinely give evidence through across various courts in Kenya. The utilization of the same would be ordinary and non-peculiar, and would not expose the Respondents to any requirement or treatment that is not expected of literally thousands of other parties every court day.
12. Accordingly, and for the foregoing reasons, this Court issues the following orders and directions:
a. The remainder of the Respondents’ Case shall be heard virtually via the Microsoft Team Platform, with the ordinary rules on witnesses and testimony applying;
b. Going forward, all Hearings, Highlighting Sessions, and/or Mentions in this matter shall be conducted virtually but with the same being closed sessions in which the Court shall maintain a lobby and ensure that the general public and persons not related to the case are not admitted or participate;
c. The Petitioner, the Respondents, and their respective Counsel shall be at liberty to utilize any such manual or automated recording or transcription measures with respect to those proceedings, but the Court does hereby order that all such manual or automated recordings shall not be shared, published, or disseminated to any persons other than the Parties or their respective Counsel and authorized Counsel Staff;
d. The Court shall, on its part, also maintain a transcription in addition to the regular Judge’s record of the proceedings; and
e. There shall be no costs.
13. Orders and Directions Accordingly.
DATED, SIGNED, AND DELIVERED VIRTUALLY ON THIS 19 TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026.
_______________________
BAHATI MWAMUYE MBS
JUDGE
In the presence of: -
Counsel for the Petitioner – Mr. Attalo
Counsel for the Respondents – Mr. Mwangi
Court Assistant – Ms. Lwambia
HCCHRPET. E594 OF 2024 RULING Page 2 | 21
2. Specifically, the Petitioner/Applicant wishes to record to the Judge, opposing Counsel, and the remaining witnesses of the Respondents. The basis of the prayer for leave is that Counsel for the Petitioner/Applicant has developed a medical condition that limits his ability to take notes of the proceedings. Thus, it is contended by the Petitioner/Applicant that the audio-visual recordings would enable her Counsel to mitigate the effects of the medical condition and be able to have an audio-visual record in the place of a written record.
3. The Petitioner/Applicant also relied on the alleged discrepancies in the draft typed proceedings as a further reason why an audio-visual recording of the proceedings is necessary.
4. In urging the Court to allow the Oral Application, Counsel for the Petitioner/Applicant closed by stating that the Assisting Counsel who had been taking notes on his behalf would soon be unavailable, meaning that audio-visual recording would be the only means by which he could have a record of what transpired in a particular court session.
5. The Oral Application was strenuously opposed by the Respondents. They argued that the proposed change would place them at a disadvantage since they did not enjoy a similar facility during the Petitioner’s case. Further, the Respondents argue that audio recording alone would suffice, and there is no need for the added aspect of video recording in order to achieve the outcome sought by the Petitioner’s Counsel.
6. Lastly, the Respondents raised issues of breach of privacy, data protection concerns, and the possibility that the audio-visual recordings may ‘leak’ to the public. The Respondents rested by underscoring that to their minds the Oral Application defeats the very essence of having the proceedings conducted to the exclusion of the public and persons unrelated to the matter.
7. In rebuttal, the Petitioner/Applicant noted that the recordings would be strictly used by himself and persons within his law firm, and they would not be divulged to any person outside that law firm. It was also argued in rebuttal that access to justice for persons with disabilities or medical conditions that impede them is a fundamental right that should be reasonably accommodated by the courts.
8. Having heard the parties, and after considering the applicable caselaw, I am satisfied that there is a relatively simple and straightforward avenue by which the Counsel for the Petitioner’s request can be accommodated while also securing the interests and concerns raised by the Respondents.
9. That avenue is that for the remainder of these proceedings the hearings and highlighting of written submissions be conducted via the Microsoft Teams Platform, but with a proviso that the virtual sessions shall remain closed to the public and to persons not related to the case. The Court would utilize a ‘lobby’ for such sessions, to give full effect to this proviso.
10. The utilization of the Microsoft Teams Platform would allow the Petitioner’s Counsel to have an audio-visual recording of the proceedings vide a platform that is widely used by the Judiciary; with the added advantage that the Counsel for the Petitioner would be able to employ Artificial Intelligence tools or automated recording and transcription features, thus saving Counsel from the burden of manual transcription.
11. On their part, the Respondents would be heard on a platform that thousands of other litigants routinely give evidence through across various courts in Kenya. The utilization of the same would be ordinary and non-peculiar, and would not expose the Respondents to any requirement or treatment that is not expected of literally thousands of other parties every court day.
12. Accordingly, and for the foregoing reasons, this Court issues the following orders and directions:
a. The remainder of the Respondents’ Case shall be heard virtually via the Microsoft Team Platform, with the ordinary rules on witnesses and testimony applying;
b. Going forward, all Hearings, Highlighting Sessions, and/or Mentions in this matter shall be conducted virtually but with the same being closed sessions in which the Court shall maintain a lobby and ensure that the general public and persons not related to the case are not admitted or participate;
c. The Petitioner, the Respondents, and their respective Counsel shall be at liberty to utilize any such manual or automated recording or transcription measures with respect to those proceedings, but the Court does hereby order that all such manual or automated recordings shall not be shared, published, or disseminated to any persons other than the Parties or their respective Counsel and authorized Counsel Staff;
d. The Court shall, on its part, also maintain a transcription in addition to the regular Judge’s record of the proceedings; and
e. There shall be no costs.
13. Orders and Directions Accordingly.
DATED, SIGNED, AND DELIVERED VIRTUALLY ON THIS 19 TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026.
_______________________
BAHATI MWAMUYE MBS
JUDGE
In the presence of: -
Counsel for the Petitioner – Mr. Attalo
Counsel for the Respondents – Mr. Mwangi
Court Assistant – Ms. Lwambia
HCCHRPET. E594 OF 2024 RULING Page 2 | 21