[1] The petitioner, Lorine Otieno , approached the Court vide her Petition dated 25 th July 2024, in which she introduced herself as a devout member of the Seventh Day Adventist (SDA) Church and a well-known SDA gospel artist and evangelist. At paragraph 5 of the Petition she averred that the Seventh Day Adventist Church (East Africa) Limited, the 5 th respondent herein, is a company incorporated under the Companies Act whose objects, inter alia, are to impart moral and religious knowledge to its adherents throughout East Africa in accordance with the principles of the SDA Church and to establish, organize and promote churches, schools and other educational institutions for that purpose.
[2] The petitioner explained that the 1 st , 3 rd and 4 th respondents are internal administrative organs of the 5 th respondent, while the 2 nd respondent is the Executive Secretary of the Southern Lake Field, the 3 rd respondent herein, and has been sued because he authored the memo giving rise to this Petition.
[3] At paragraph 11 of her Petition, the petitioner averred that, over the years she had built a colourful reputation as a solo gospel artist and evangelist within the SDA community and beyond; and that her inspirational music and powerful messages of faith have garnered her a substantial following, predominantly from the SDA community. She explained that her ministry extends to performing at diverse functions such as weddings, fundraisers and funerals where she receives monetary stipends that contribute significantly to her livelihood.
[4] The petitioner further stated that, recognizing her potential to expand her reach, she established a YouTube channel in the year 2019 where her subscriber base grew steadily due to her compelling content. She thereafter registered a business name, Lorine Otieno Services , to manage the various aspects of her ministry, including production and distribution of her music, with a view of ensuring a steady income to support her family and aged parents.
[5] Her cause of action was that, on 10 th October 2023, her thriving career faced an abrupt and unjust challenge when the 2 nd respondent wrote a memo unilaterally barring her from performing in any Southern Kenya Lake Field churches. She complained that the memo was widely circulated on social media platforms and digital news websites, including WhatsApp groups, Facebook, Twitter and Tuko News, among others and yet was never directly communicated to her.
[6] The petitioner explained that Southern Kenya Lake Field comprises of churches situated predominantly in the larger South Nyanza Region of Kenya with the largest concentration of SDA churches and is therefore a pivotal target area for gospel ministries like hers. She added that she has all along crafted her music primarily in Dholuo, the local language of the Luo Community and the language that is widely understood and appreciated by the SDA church members from the Southern Kenya Lake Field of Adventists.
[7] Consequently, the petitioner contended that the ban was defamatory of her and tarnished her reputation in so far as it implied misconduct on her part. She also complained about the timing and impact of the ban and contended that as a direct result thereof, she suffered a 90% decline in her income from the YouTube platform as well as cancellation of events to which she had been invited. She alleged not only violation of her constitutional right to fair administrative action, right to fair hearing, economic and social rights, freedom of association, freedom of expression and the right to dignity, among others.
[8] It was in the light of the foregoing that the petitioner prayed for the following reliefs:
[a] A declaration that the respondents’ action in issuing and widely disseminating the memo banning her from singing in any Southern Kenya Lake Field churches violated her constitutional rights to freedom of expression under Article 33 and fair administrative action under Article 47 of the Constitution.
[b] A declaration that the respondents’ refusal to inform her the reasons for her ban violated her right to information under Article 35 of the Constitution.
[c] A declaration that the widely circulated memo issued by the respondents implied misconduct and constituted defamation and maliciously damages the petitioner’s reputation.
[d] A declaration that the respondents violated the petitioner’s rights under Article 28 (right to dignity), Article 32 (freedom of religion), Article 33 (freedom of expression), Article 35 (right to access information), Article 36 (freedom of association), Article 40 (right to property), and Article 47 (right to fair administrative action).
[e] An order compelling the respondents to issue a public apology and retraction of the defamatory memo, to be published on the same platforms where the original memo was disseminated, including WhatsApp groups, Facebook, Twitter, and popular digital newspapers including Tuko News and any other national newspaper with nationwide circulation in the terms to be proposed and approved by the petitioner.
[f] An order for general damages for defamation to compensate the petitioner for the damage to her reputation, mental anguish, and economic losses suffered as a result of the respondents’ actions.
[g] An order for general damages for the violation of the petitioner’s constitutional rights, to compensate the petitioner for the damage to her reputation, mental anguish, and economic losses suffered as a result of the respondents’ actions.
[h] An order for special damages amounting to Kshs. 1,340,000/= to compensate for the specific financial losses incurred by the petitioner due to the significant decline in her YouTube followership and income.
[i] A permanent injunction restraining the respondents, their agents, employees and any other persons acting under their authority from further publishing or disseminating any defamatory statements of communications regarding the petitioner.
[j] An order compelling the respondents to adhere to the due process and fair administrative procedures as outlined in the SDA Church Manual, including providing prior notice, conducting a fair hearing, and offering the petitioner an opportunity to defend herself against any allegations.
[k] An order compelling the respondents to jointly and severally bear the costs of litigating this case.
[l] Any other relief or orders that the Court may deem just and appropriate in the circumstances to protect the petitioner’s rights and restore her reputation, mental health and ministry.
[9] The Petition was opposed by the respondents. They not only filed a Notice of Preliminary Objection dated 10 th February 2025, but also relied on the Replying Affidavit sworn on the 14 th October 2024 by the 2 nd respondent on his own behalf and on behalf of the 1 st , 3 rd , 4 th and 5 th respondents. In their Notice of Preliminary Objection, the respondents contended that:
[a] This Petition was filed prematurely contrary to the Seventh Day Adventist Church Manual and Working Policy which provide for conciliation, mediation and alternative dispute resolution mechanisms which had not been exhausted prior to the filing of this case.
[b] This Petition contravenes the doctrine of exhaustion and hence bad in law.
[c] The Constitution and other laws provide for alternative dispute resolution.
[10] In the premises, the respondents prayed that the Petition be struck out with costs.
[11] In their Replying Affidavit, the respondents confirmed that the 2 nd respondent is the Executive Secretary of the Southern Kenya Lake Field of the Seventh Day Adventists. They denied that the petitioner is a bona fide member of the SDA Church; and averred that it would be outrageous for the Church to subject random citizens, particularly the petitioner, to a disciplinary process she did not subscribe to.
[12] Regarding the impugned internal memo dated 10 th October 2023, the respondents averred that the SDA Church has grown through and relied on several regulations and by-laws to strengthen its foundation and structure desirable service in accordance with the laws of the land. They averred that the subject memo is one of the adjustments made by the Church with a view of creating a better service delivery and ensure purity of the pulpits of the Church.
[13] The respondents further averred that different regions experience different challenges and the issue addressed by the subject memo was majorly experienced in the Southern Lake Field region in which the churches would host random gospel artists, regardless of their beliefs. Accordingly, the respondents contended that the memo was intended for internal circulation within the leadership of the churches under the Southern Lake Field and was never publicized to any print media, e-media platforms, YouTube, WhatsApp, Facebook or Twitter. They added that the Church is a non-profit organization and therefore it is not a platform for any artiste to use to further their financial interests; especially non-members of the Church.
[14] It was the assertion of the respondents that the petitioner was specifically mentioned in the memo, not to defame her, but because she was the only artiste known to traverse the area in question for financial gain using the Church’s pulpits. They further stated that although the Church has procedure in place for artistes wishing to perform in any of its churches to make a prior request for approval, the petitioner made no such request. Accordingly, the respondents denied each of the alleged violations of the Constitution. They also denied that the petitioner was defamed by them and put her to strict proof thereof. They annexed several documents to back up their assertions.
[15] In response to some of the averments made by the respondents in their Replying Affidavit, the petitioner filed a Supplementary Affidavit sworn by her on 6 th November 2024. She urged the Court to find that the Replying Affidavit is defective as no written authority by the affiant’s co-respondents was annexed thereto. She further averred that she is a bona fide member of the SDA Church and was registered at the Huruma SDA Church in the East Nairobi Field as member number 156, having been baptized on the 19 th September 2022. She annexed her baptismal certificate as Exhibit LO-1 to her Supplementary Affidavit.
[16] The petitioner further averred that she had ministered in various SDA churches across the Republic of Kenya for years, including those within the Southern Kenya Lake Field and has always been treated as a member in good standing. She therefore denied that she is a random citizen as alleged by the 2 nd respondent, and added that the suggestion was nothing but an attempt by the respondents to evade responsibility for their wrongful actions. She reiterated her earlier grievances in connection with the memo dated 10 th October 2023 and its financial impact on her and her family.
[17] The petitioner also attached to her Supplementary Affidavit affidavits sworn by church members who averred that after the circulation of the impugned memo they viewed her with suspicion. The petitioner withdrew the affidavits of Juma Onyango James, Akinyi Joyce Otieno and Otieno Danga Elijah and replaced them with the affidavits of Benhard Otieno Onyango, Richard Otieno Ogello, Sheba Aoko Osula and Taji Ark Juma which she attached as annexures to her Supporting Affidavit.
[18] In response to the respondents’ averments in respect of the doctrine of exhaustion, the petitioner averred that her claim is not solely a matter of internal church discipline but violation of constitutional rights for which she seeks constitutional interpretation.
[19] In the affidavit of Sheba Aoko Osula, she averred that she had known, followed and engaged the petitioner as a gospel singer for 5 years and got to know from social media that she had been banned from performing in churches within the Southern Kenya Lake Field. She further averred that the ban had caused significant distress and confusion among the petitioner’s followers, including those who had engaged or wished to engage her services. She added that the ban had deprived many of the blessings and inspiration the petitioner’s music and services brought.
[20] Richard Otieno Ogello averred that he is the father of the petitioner and that, as a single parent, he raised the petitioner and her siblings within the SDA Church where she developed and nurtured a strong gospel music ministry as a solo artist. He further averred that, through her music ministry, the petitioner had managed to financially sustain herself, support her younger siblings who were still in school and assist him financially. Richard Otieno Ogello further deposed that the petitioner’s ministry has not been confined solely to church events, but extends to various events outside the church to include charitable activities.
[21] He further deposed that, following the ban, he received numerous phone calls from concerned community members, all seeking to understand why the petitioner had been prohibited from performing in the churches. He added that because the respondents had not disclosed the reasons for the arbitrary ban on the petitioner, he has been unable to answer the questions about the petitioner’s alleged misconduct. He also averred that it was within his knowledge, because it was upon his advice, that the petitioner reached out in vain to the respondents, not only to seek for an explanation for the ban but also to reach an amicable resolution of the issue with the church leadership.
[22] Lastly, Richard Otieno Ogello deposed that, as a direct consequence of the ban, he no longer receives financial support from the petitioner that he had hitherto relied on to cover the educational needs of his younger children. He added that he has had to organize fundraising meetings to raise funds to support their education. He produced a copy of the harambee card for such fundraising activities. He therefore averred that the ongoing effects of the ban are profound and damaging, not only to the petitioner’s reputation and ministry but also to his family’s well-being. He therefore believed that the resolution of this case will enable the petitioner to resume her services and operations and continue her mission of inspiring and uplifting communities through gospel music.
[23] Lastly, Taji Ark Juma , averred that he has been an ardent follower and supporter of the petitioner and her music. He averred that he attended several of her performances at various churches and events within the Southern Kenya Lake Field of the Seventh Day Adventists and beyond. He confirmed that on or about the 10 th October 2023, he became aware of the memo issued by the SDA Church and signed by Daniel Otieno Odek, the Executive Secretary of the Southern Kenya Lake Field. Mr. Juma added that the memo was widely circulated on social media platforms and digital news websites, including WhatsApp groups, Facebook, Twitter and popular digital newspapers like Tuko News, causing significant stir with the SDA community and beyond.
[24] It was the averment of Mr. Juma that, when he read the memo, he believed that the petitioner had engaged in serious misconduct which cast doubt on her integrity and character; and therefore he felt compelled to disengage from following her music and therefore he unsubscribed from her YouTube channel where he was an active subscriber and ceased attending her live performances. He later got to learn that the petitioner had not been given a hearing before the ban was made; and that the petitioner is entitled to seek the vindication of her constitutional rights to enable her regain her rightful place as an inspiring and respected gospel artist.
[25] Bernhard Otieno Onyango was the manager of Lorine Otieno Services. He averred that he has been responsible for organizing, producing and distributing the music composed by the petitioner, including related services such as event management. Mr. Onyango further averred that over the years he had overseen and actively participated in all the album launches by the petitioner. He pointed out that the petitioner blended her religious mission with artistic expression for economic gain. At paragraphs 9 to 14, Mr. Onyango adverted to the various ways in which the petitioner, as a gospel artiste, has been earning income.
[26] Further to the foregoing, Mr. Onyango made reference to the ban and its adverse effects on the petitioner as well as her employees. He added that the petitioner and the management team formally wrote to the leadership of the Southern Kenya Lake Field seeking clarification and amicable resolution but received no response. He averred that, if the Petition is resolved in favour of the petitioner, it will not only clear her name but also restore the confidence and trust of her partners, clients and the public in Lorine Otieno Services.
[27] The Petition was canvassed by way of written submissions, pursuant to the directions given herein on 29 th September 2025. Accordingly, the petitioner filed written submissions dated 3 rd February 2026. She reiterated the factual basis of her Petition and stated that the Petition arises from the respondents’ unilateral, unexplained, and publicly disseminated decision banning her from performing as a gospel artist within the Southern Kenya Lake Field of the Seventh Day Adventist (SDA) Church vide an internal memo dated 10 th October 2023, issued by the 2 nd respondent, Daniel Otieno Odek.
[28] The petitioner contended that the impugned action on the part of the respondents violated her fundamental rights under Articles 27, 28, 33, 35, 40, 47 and 50 of the Constitution. Accordingly, she proposed the following issues for determination by the Court:
[a] Whether the Preliminary Objection on the grounds of exhaustion of internal remedies is merited; and whether the same should result in the striking out of the Petition.
[b] Whether the petitioner is a bona fide member of the SDA Church to whom the SDA Church Manual and its disciplinary processes apply.
[c] Whether the respondents’ actions in issuing and disseminating the ban against the petitioner violated her constitutional rights to fair administrative action, fair hearing, human dignity, freedom of expression, property and access to information.
[d] Whether the petitioner is entitled to the reliefs sought.
[e] Whether the Court has jurisdiction to issue the remedies sought.
[f] Who should bear the costs of the Petition?
[29] In response to the Preliminary Objection raised by the respondents, the petitioner submitted that the same is not based on a pure point of law and should not be entertained. She relied on Mukisa Biscuits Manufacturing Co. Ltd v West End Distributors Ltd [1969] EA 696 and Oraro v Mbaja [2005] KEHC 3182 (KLR) to buttress her submission that, for the Court to determine whether internal remedies were exhausted the it would have to investigate and ascertain the surrounding facts. She added that she made efforts in good faith to use thee internal avenues available within the Church before coming to court as shown by the documents annexed to her Supplementary Affidavit.
[30] Further to the foregoing, the petitioner submitted that the doctrine of exhaustion is not an absolute bar where constitutional rights are at stake. In this regard, the petitioner relied on Nicholus v Attorney General & 7 others; National Environmental Complaints Committee & 5 others (Interested Parties) [2023] KESC 113 (KLR) and Benjamin v Attorney General & 55 others [2026] KESC 6 (KLR) in support of her submissions. She contended that her Petition alleges violations of constitutional rights; which violations cannot be adequately resolved by an internal church committee.
[31] On the question whether she is a bona fide member of the Church, the petitioner submitted that she provided conclusive proof of her membership vide her Supplementary Affidavit at paragraph 7 and the annexure marked Exhibit LO-2, to the effect that she was baptized on 19 th September 2020 and received as member number 156 at Huruma SDA Church. She also relied on the invitation letter marked Exhibit LO-2 showing that she was invited as a guest singer for the Oyugis West SDA Church camp meeting from the 6 th to 13 th August 2023. She posited that the church would not have invited her if she was a non-adventist.
[32] On whether the respondents’ actions violated her constitutional rights, the petitioner addressed the Court in detail at paragraphs 30 to 60, which I will revert to shortly in this judgment. On that account she urged the Court to find that she is entitled to the reliefs prayed for in her Petition. In particular, the petitioner submitted that she is entitled to:
[a] The declaratory orders sought;
[b] Retraction and public apology
[c] General damages
[d] Special damages
[e] Permanent injunction
[33] On the authority of Mitu-Bell Welfare Society v Kenya Airports Authority & 2 others; Initiative for Strategic Litigation in Africa (Amicus Curiae) [2021] KESC 34 (KLR) and Wamwere & others v Attorney General [2023] KESC 3 (KLR) the petitioner submitted that, under Article 23(3) of the Constitution, the Court has powers to grant appropriate reliefs, including compensatory awards; and therefore the reliefs sought by her are such as are within the jurisdiction of the Court to grant. She also prayed for costs of the Petition
[34] On their part, the respondents relied on their written submissions dated 27 th February 2026. They proposed the following issues for determination:
[a] Whether the Petition meets the constitutional threshold under Sections 22 and 23 of the Constitution.
[b] Whether the respondents as a religious organization violated any of the petitioner’s constitutional rights.
[c] Whether the Petition improperly invites the Court to interfere with the internal religious doctrine, policy and governance.
[d] Whether the reliefs sought are available in a constitutional petition.
[35] The respondents submitted that, although it is a requirement that a constitutional petition be pleaded with specificity, the petitioner did not comply. In their submission, the petitioner merely set out numerous articles of the Constitution but failed to demonstrate with precision how each respondent violated those provisions. They relied on Anarita Karimi Njeru v Republic [1979] eKLR and Mumo Matemu v Trusted Society of Human Rights Alliance [2013] eKLR and urged the Court to find that the Petition falls short of the threshold set in Articles 22 and 23 of the Constitution.
[36] On the membership status of the petitioner, the petitioners submitted that the issue is not the baptismal status of the petitioner but whether the South Kenya Lake Field of the SDA Church was constitutionally obligated to host or permit the petitioner to minister within its local churches. They further submitted that a baptismal card is only proof of entry, and that one must further comply with the teachings and regulations of the church and remain a member of good standing.
[37] The respondents responded to the specific allegations of violations and urged the Court to find that none of the alleged violations was proved against them. They accordingly prayed for the dismissal of the Petition with costs.
[38] Since the respondents raised a Preliminary Objection to the Petition, it is imperative for the same to be considered first before a merit consideration of the Petition. As was pointed out in Mukisa Biscuits Manufacturers Ltd v West End Distributors Ltd:
“...a Preliminary Objection consists of a pure point of law which has been pleaded, or which arises by clear implication out of pleadings, and which if argued as a preliminary objection may dispose of the suit. Examples are an objection to the jurisdiction of the court, or a plea of limitation, or a submission that the parties are bound by the contract giving rise to the suit, to refer the dispute to arbitration.”
[39] The respondents contended that the Court lacks the requisite jurisdiction to entertain this Petition. Needless to say that it would be inconsequential for a Court of law to proceed to hear and determine a matter if it lacks the jurisdiction so to do. This was aptly expressed by the Court of Appeal in the Owners of Motor Vessel "Lilian s" vs. Caltex Oil (K) Ltd [1989] KLR 1, thus:
"Jurisdiction is everything. Without it, a court has no power to make one more step. Where a court has no jurisdiction, there would be no basis for a continuation of proceedings pending other evidence. A court of law downs tools in respect of the matter before it the moment it holds the opinion that it is without jurisdiction."
[40] And there is no gainsaying that the question of jurisdiction is one that must be taken in limine . In above case the Court (per Nyarangi, JA ) added that:
"...it is reasonably plain that a question of jurisdiction ought to be raised at the earliest opportunity and the court seized of the matter is then obliged to decide the issue right away on the material before it..."
[41] In the work, Major Law Lexicon, Volume 4, jurisdiction is aptly defined thus:
"By jurisdiction is meant the authority which a Court has to decide matters that are litigated before it, or to take cognizance of matters presented in a formal way for its decision. The limits of this authority are imposed by Statute or Chapter or Commission under which the Court is constituted and may be extended or restricted by similar means. If no restriction or limitation is imposed, the jurisdiction is said to be unlimited. A limitation may be either as to the kind or nature of the actions or the matters of which the particular court has cognizance or as to the area over which the jurisdiction extends, or it may partake of both these characteristics..."
[42] Hence, in Samuel Kamau Macharia & Another v Kenya Commercial Bank Limited & 2 Others [2012] eKLR, the Supreme Court held that:
"A court's jurisdiction flows from either the Constitution or legislation or both. Thus, a court of law can only exercise jurisdiction as conferred by the Constitution or other written law. It cannot arrogate to itself jurisdiction exceeding that which is conferred by law. We agree with counsel for the first and second Respondents in his submission that the issue as to whether a court of law has jurisdiction to entertain a matter before it is not one of mere procedural technicality; it goes to the very heart of the matter, for without jurisdiction, the court cannot entertain any proceedings...Where the Constitution exhaustively provides for the jurisdiction of a court of law, the court must operate within the constitutional limits. It cannot expand its jurisdiction through judicial craft or innovation. Nor can Parliament confer jurisdiction upon a court of law beyond the scope defined by the Constitution. Where the Constitution confers power on Parliament to set the jurisdiction of a court of law or tribunal, the legislature would be within its authority to prescribe the jurisdiction of such a court or tribunal by statute law."
[43] Since the petitioner has, in the main, alleged violations or threatened violations of her rights under Articles 10, 27 and 46 of the Constitution and has accordingly prayed for declaratory and other reliefs from the Court in that regard pursuant to Articles 22 and 23 of the Constitution, there can be no doubt that this Court has jurisdiction to hear and determine the Petition. This is because Article 165(3) of the Constitution sets out the jurisdiction of the High Court in the following terms:
(3) Subject to clause (5), the High Court shall have—
(a) unlimited original jurisdiction in criminal and civil matters;
(b) jurisdiction to determine the question whether a right or fundamental freedom in the Bill of Rights has been denied, violated, infringed or threatened;
(c) jurisdiction to hear an appeal from a decision of a tribunal appointed under this Constitution to consider the removal of a person from office, other than a tribunal appointed under Article 144;
(d) jurisdiction to hear any question respecting the interpretation of this Constitution including the determination of—
(i) the question whether any law is inconsistent with or in contravention of this Constitution;
(ii) the question whether anything said to be done under the authority of this Constitution or of any law is inconsistent with, or in contravention of, this Constitution;
(iii) any matter relating to constitutional powers of State organs in respect of county governments and any matter relating to the constitutional relationship between the levels of government; and
(iv) a question relating to conflict of laws under Article 191; and
(e) any other jurisdiction, original or appellate, conferred on it by legislation.
[44] It is noteworthy however that the jurisdiction point was taken from the point of view of the doctrine of exhaustion. There can be no doubt that alternative dispute resolution mechanisms play a critical role in the administration of justice and indeed, have pride of place in Article 159(2)(c) of the Constitution; which mandates that:
“In exercising judicial authority, the courts and tribunals shall be guided by the following principles…alternative forms of dispute resolution including reconciliation, mediation, arbitration and traditional dispute resolution mechanisms shall be promoted, subject to clause (3).”
[45] To my mind, this provision, far from being a complete ouster of jurisdiction of the Court as was suggested by the respondent, simply provides for a postponement of approach to the Court in favour of the expediency contemplated by pursuing the available
[...truncated]
[2] The petitioner explained that the 1 st , 3 rd and 4 th respondents are internal administrative organs of the 5 th respondent, while the 2 nd respondent is the Executive Secretary of the Southern Lake Field, the 3 rd respondent herein, and has been sued because he authored the memo giving rise to this Petition.
[3] At paragraph 11 of her Petition, the petitioner averred that, over the years she had built a colourful reputation as a solo gospel artist and evangelist within the SDA community and beyond; and that her inspirational music and powerful messages of faith have garnered her a substantial following, predominantly from the SDA community. She explained that her ministry extends to performing at diverse functions such as weddings, fundraisers and funerals where she receives monetary stipends that contribute significantly to her livelihood.
[4] The petitioner further stated that, recognizing her potential to expand her reach, she established a YouTube channel in the year 2019 where her subscriber base grew steadily due to her compelling content. She thereafter registered a business name, Lorine Otieno Services , to manage the various aspects of her ministry, including production and distribution of her music, with a view of ensuring a steady income to support her family and aged parents.
[5] Her cause of action was that, on 10 th October 2023, her thriving career faced an abrupt and unjust challenge when the 2 nd respondent wrote a memo unilaterally barring her from performing in any Southern Kenya Lake Field churches. She complained that the memo was widely circulated on social media platforms and digital news websites, including WhatsApp groups, Facebook, Twitter and Tuko News, among others and yet was never directly communicated to her.
[6] The petitioner explained that Southern Kenya Lake Field comprises of churches situated predominantly in the larger South Nyanza Region of Kenya with the largest concentration of SDA churches and is therefore a pivotal target area for gospel ministries like hers. She added that she has all along crafted her music primarily in Dholuo, the local language of the Luo Community and the language that is widely understood and appreciated by the SDA church members from the Southern Kenya Lake Field of Adventists.
[7] Consequently, the petitioner contended that the ban was defamatory of her and tarnished her reputation in so far as it implied misconduct on her part. She also complained about the timing and impact of the ban and contended that as a direct result thereof, she suffered a 90% decline in her income from the YouTube platform as well as cancellation of events to which she had been invited. She alleged not only violation of her constitutional right to fair administrative action, right to fair hearing, economic and social rights, freedom of association, freedom of expression and the right to dignity, among others.
[8] It was in the light of the foregoing that the petitioner prayed for the following reliefs:
[a] A declaration that the respondents’ action in issuing and widely disseminating the memo banning her from singing in any Southern Kenya Lake Field churches violated her constitutional rights to freedom of expression under Article 33 and fair administrative action under Article 47 of the Constitution.
[b] A declaration that the respondents’ refusal to inform her the reasons for her ban violated her right to information under Article 35 of the Constitution.
[c] A declaration that the widely circulated memo issued by the respondents implied misconduct and constituted defamation and maliciously damages the petitioner’s reputation.
[d] A declaration that the respondents violated the petitioner’s rights under Article 28 (right to dignity), Article 32 (freedom of religion), Article 33 (freedom of expression), Article 35 (right to access information), Article 36 (freedom of association), Article 40 (right to property), and Article 47 (right to fair administrative action).
[e] An order compelling the respondents to issue a public apology and retraction of the defamatory memo, to be published on the same platforms where the original memo was disseminated, including WhatsApp groups, Facebook, Twitter, and popular digital newspapers including Tuko News and any other national newspaper with nationwide circulation in the terms to be proposed and approved by the petitioner.
[f] An order for general damages for defamation to compensate the petitioner for the damage to her reputation, mental anguish, and economic losses suffered as a result of the respondents’ actions.
[g] An order for general damages for the violation of the petitioner’s constitutional rights, to compensate the petitioner for the damage to her reputation, mental anguish, and economic losses suffered as a result of the respondents’ actions.
[h] An order for special damages amounting to Kshs. 1,340,000/= to compensate for the specific financial losses incurred by the petitioner due to the significant decline in her YouTube followership and income.
[i] A permanent injunction restraining the respondents, their agents, employees and any other persons acting under their authority from further publishing or disseminating any defamatory statements of communications regarding the petitioner.
[j] An order compelling the respondents to adhere to the due process and fair administrative procedures as outlined in the SDA Church Manual, including providing prior notice, conducting a fair hearing, and offering the petitioner an opportunity to defend herself against any allegations.
[k] An order compelling the respondents to jointly and severally bear the costs of litigating this case.
[l] Any other relief or orders that the Court may deem just and appropriate in the circumstances to protect the petitioner’s rights and restore her reputation, mental health and ministry.
[9] The Petition was opposed by the respondents. They not only filed a Notice of Preliminary Objection dated 10 th February 2025, but also relied on the Replying Affidavit sworn on the 14 th October 2024 by the 2 nd respondent on his own behalf and on behalf of the 1 st , 3 rd , 4 th and 5 th respondents. In their Notice of Preliminary Objection, the respondents contended that:
[a] This Petition was filed prematurely contrary to the Seventh Day Adventist Church Manual and Working Policy which provide for conciliation, mediation and alternative dispute resolution mechanisms which had not been exhausted prior to the filing of this case.
[b] This Petition contravenes the doctrine of exhaustion and hence bad in law.
[c] The Constitution and other laws provide for alternative dispute resolution.
[10] In the premises, the respondents prayed that the Petition be struck out with costs.
[11] In their Replying Affidavit, the respondents confirmed that the 2 nd respondent is the Executive Secretary of the Southern Kenya Lake Field of the Seventh Day Adventists. They denied that the petitioner is a bona fide member of the SDA Church; and averred that it would be outrageous for the Church to subject random citizens, particularly the petitioner, to a disciplinary process she did not subscribe to.
[12] Regarding the impugned internal memo dated 10 th October 2023, the respondents averred that the SDA Church has grown through and relied on several regulations and by-laws to strengthen its foundation and structure desirable service in accordance with the laws of the land. They averred that the subject memo is one of the adjustments made by the Church with a view of creating a better service delivery and ensure purity of the pulpits of the Church.
[13] The respondents further averred that different regions experience different challenges and the issue addressed by the subject memo was majorly experienced in the Southern Lake Field region in which the churches would host random gospel artists, regardless of their beliefs. Accordingly, the respondents contended that the memo was intended for internal circulation within the leadership of the churches under the Southern Lake Field and was never publicized to any print media, e-media platforms, YouTube, WhatsApp, Facebook or Twitter. They added that the Church is a non-profit organization and therefore it is not a platform for any artiste to use to further their financial interests; especially non-members of the Church.
[14] It was the assertion of the respondents that the petitioner was specifically mentioned in the memo, not to defame her, but because she was the only artiste known to traverse the area in question for financial gain using the Church’s pulpits. They further stated that although the Church has procedure in place for artistes wishing to perform in any of its churches to make a prior request for approval, the petitioner made no such request. Accordingly, the respondents denied each of the alleged violations of the Constitution. They also denied that the petitioner was defamed by them and put her to strict proof thereof. They annexed several documents to back up their assertions.
[15] In response to some of the averments made by the respondents in their Replying Affidavit, the petitioner filed a Supplementary Affidavit sworn by her on 6 th November 2024. She urged the Court to find that the Replying Affidavit is defective as no written authority by the affiant’s co-respondents was annexed thereto. She further averred that she is a bona fide member of the SDA Church and was registered at the Huruma SDA Church in the East Nairobi Field as member number 156, having been baptized on the 19 th September 2022. She annexed her baptismal certificate as Exhibit LO-1 to her Supplementary Affidavit.
[16] The petitioner further averred that she had ministered in various SDA churches across the Republic of Kenya for years, including those within the Southern Kenya Lake Field and has always been treated as a member in good standing. She therefore denied that she is a random citizen as alleged by the 2 nd respondent, and added that the suggestion was nothing but an attempt by the respondents to evade responsibility for their wrongful actions. She reiterated her earlier grievances in connection with the memo dated 10 th October 2023 and its financial impact on her and her family.
[17] The petitioner also attached to her Supplementary Affidavit affidavits sworn by church members who averred that after the circulation of the impugned memo they viewed her with suspicion. The petitioner withdrew the affidavits of Juma Onyango James, Akinyi Joyce Otieno and Otieno Danga Elijah and replaced them with the affidavits of Benhard Otieno Onyango, Richard Otieno Ogello, Sheba Aoko Osula and Taji Ark Juma which she attached as annexures to her Supporting Affidavit.
[18] In response to the respondents’ averments in respect of the doctrine of exhaustion, the petitioner averred that her claim is not solely a matter of internal church discipline but violation of constitutional rights for which she seeks constitutional interpretation.
[19] In the affidavit of Sheba Aoko Osula, she averred that she had known, followed and engaged the petitioner as a gospel singer for 5 years and got to know from social media that she had been banned from performing in churches within the Southern Kenya Lake Field. She further averred that the ban had caused significant distress and confusion among the petitioner’s followers, including those who had engaged or wished to engage her services. She added that the ban had deprived many of the blessings and inspiration the petitioner’s music and services brought.
[20] Richard Otieno Ogello averred that he is the father of the petitioner and that, as a single parent, he raised the petitioner and her siblings within the SDA Church where she developed and nurtured a strong gospel music ministry as a solo artist. He further averred that, through her music ministry, the petitioner had managed to financially sustain herself, support her younger siblings who were still in school and assist him financially. Richard Otieno Ogello further deposed that the petitioner’s ministry has not been confined solely to church events, but extends to various events outside the church to include charitable activities.
[21] He further deposed that, following the ban, he received numerous phone calls from concerned community members, all seeking to understand why the petitioner had been prohibited from performing in the churches. He added that because the respondents had not disclosed the reasons for the arbitrary ban on the petitioner, he has been unable to answer the questions about the petitioner’s alleged misconduct. He also averred that it was within his knowledge, because it was upon his advice, that the petitioner reached out in vain to the respondents, not only to seek for an explanation for the ban but also to reach an amicable resolution of the issue with the church leadership.
[22] Lastly, Richard Otieno Ogello deposed that, as a direct consequence of the ban, he no longer receives financial support from the petitioner that he had hitherto relied on to cover the educational needs of his younger children. He added that he has had to organize fundraising meetings to raise funds to support their education. He produced a copy of the harambee card for such fundraising activities. He therefore averred that the ongoing effects of the ban are profound and damaging, not only to the petitioner’s reputation and ministry but also to his family’s well-being. He therefore believed that the resolution of this case will enable the petitioner to resume her services and operations and continue her mission of inspiring and uplifting communities through gospel music.
[23] Lastly, Taji Ark Juma , averred that he has been an ardent follower and supporter of the petitioner and her music. He averred that he attended several of her performances at various churches and events within the Southern Kenya Lake Field of the Seventh Day Adventists and beyond. He confirmed that on or about the 10 th October 2023, he became aware of the memo issued by the SDA Church and signed by Daniel Otieno Odek, the Executive Secretary of the Southern Kenya Lake Field. Mr. Juma added that the memo was widely circulated on social media platforms and digital news websites, including WhatsApp groups, Facebook, Twitter and popular digital newspapers like Tuko News, causing significant stir with the SDA community and beyond.
[24] It was the averment of Mr. Juma that, when he read the memo, he believed that the petitioner had engaged in serious misconduct which cast doubt on her integrity and character; and therefore he felt compelled to disengage from following her music and therefore he unsubscribed from her YouTube channel where he was an active subscriber and ceased attending her live performances. He later got to learn that the petitioner had not been given a hearing before the ban was made; and that the petitioner is entitled to seek the vindication of her constitutional rights to enable her regain her rightful place as an inspiring and respected gospel artist.
[25] Bernhard Otieno Onyango was the manager of Lorine Otieno Services. He averred that he has been responsible for organizing, producing and distributing the music composed by the petitioner, including related services such as event management. Mr. Onyango further averred that over the years he had overseen and actively participated in all the album launches by the petitioner. He pointed out that the petitioner blended her religious mission with artistic expression for economic gain. At paragraphs 9 to 14, Mr. Onyango adverted to the various ways in which the petitioner, as a gospel artiste, has been earning income.
[26] Further to the foregoing, Mr. Onyango made reference to the ban and its adverse effects on the petitioner as well as her employees. He added that the petitioner and the management team formally wrote to the leadership of the Southern Kenya Lake Field seeking clarification and amicable resolution but received no response. He averred that, if the Petition is resolved in favour of the petitioner, it will not only clear her name but also restore the confidence and trust of her partners, clients and the public in Lorine Otieno Services.
[27] The Petition was canvassed by way of written submissions, pursuant to the directions given herein on 29 th September 2025. Accordingly, the petitioner filed written submissions dated 3 rd February 2026. She reiterated the factual basis of her Petition and stated that the Petition arises from the respondents’ unilateral, unexplained, and publicly disseminated decision banning her from performing as a gospel artist within the Southern Kenya Lake Field of the Seventh Day Adventist (SDA) Church vide an internal memo dated 10 th October 2023, issued by the 2 nd respondent, Daniel Otieno Odek.
[28] The petitioner contended that the impugned action on the part of the respondents violated her fundamental rights under Articles 27, 28, 33, 35, 40, 47 and 50 of the Constitution. Accordingly, she proposed the following issues for determination by the Court:
[a] Whether the Preliminary Objection on the grounds of exhaustion of internal remedies is merited; and whether the same should result in the striking out of the Petition.
[b] Whether the petitioner is a bona fide member of the SDA Church to whom the SDA Church Manual and its disciplinary processes apply.
[c] Whether the respondents’ actions in issuing and disseminating the ban against the petitioner violated her constitutional rights to fair administrative action, fair hearing, human dignity, freedom of expression, property and access to information.
[d] Whether the petitioner is entitled to the reliefs sought.
[e] Whether the Court has jurisdiction to issue the remedies sought.
[f] Who should bear the costs of the Petition?
[29] In response to the Preliminary Objection raised by the respondents, the petitioner submitted that the same is not based on a pure point of law and should not be entertained. She relied on Mukisa Biscuits Manufacturing Co. Ltd v West End Distributors Ltd [1969] EA 696 and Oraro v Mbaja [2005] KEHC 3182 (KLR) to buttress her submission that, for the Court to determine whether internal remedies were exhausted the it would have to investigate and ascertain the surrounding facts. She added that she made efforts in good faith to use thee internal avenues available within the Church before coming to court as shown by the documents annexed to her Supplementary Affidavit.
[30] Further to the foregoing, the petitioner submitted that the doctrine of exhaustion is not an absolute bar where constitutional rights are at stake. In this regard, the petitioner relied on Nicholus v Attorney General & 7 others; National Environmental Complaints Committee & 5 others (Interested Parties) [2023] KESC 113 (KLR) and Benjamin v Attorney General & 55 others [2026] KESC 6 (KLR) in support of her submissions. She contended that her Petition alleges violations of constitutional rights; which violations cannot be adequately resolved by an internal church committee.
[31] On the question whether she is a bona fide member of the Church, the petitioner submitted that she provided conclusive proof of her membership vide her Supplementary Affidavit at paragraph 7 and the annexure marked Exhibit LO-2, to the effect that she was baptized on 19 th September 2020 and received as member number 156 at Huruma SDA Church. She also relied on the invitation letter marked Exhibit LO-2 showing that she was invited as a guest singer for the Oyugis West SDA Church camp meeting from the 6 th to 13 th August 2023. She posited that the church would not have invited her if she was a non-adventist.
[32] On whether the respondents’ actions violated her constitutional rights, the petitioner addressed the Court in detail at paragraphs 30 to 60, which I will revert to shortly in this judgment. On that account she urged the Court to find that she is entitled to the reliefs prayed for in her Petition. In particular, the petitioner submitted that she is entitled to:
[a] The declaratory orders sought;
[b] Retraction and public apology
[c] General damages
[d] Special damages
[e] Permanent injunction
[33] On the authority of Mitu-Bell Welfare Society v Kenya Airports Authority & 2 others; Initiative for Strategic Litigation in Africa (Amicus Curiae) [2021] KESC 34 (KLR) and Wamwere & others v Attorney General [2023] KESC 3 (KLR) the petitioner submitted that, under Article 23(3) of the Constitution, the Court has powers to grant appropriate reliefs, including compensatory awards; and therefore the reliefs sought by her are such as are within the jurisdiction of the Court to grant. She also prayed for costs of the Petition
[34] On their part, the respondents relied on their written submissions dated 27 th February 2026. They proposed the following issues for determination:
[a] Whether the Petition meets the constitutional threshold under Sections 22 and 23 of the Constitution.
[b] Whether the respondents as a religious organization violated any of the petitioner’s constitutional rights.
[c] Whether the Petition improperly invites the Court to interfere with the internal religious doctrine, policy and governance.
[d] Whether the reliefs sought are available in a constitutional petition.
[35] The respondents submitted that, although it is a requirement that a constitutional petition be pleaded with specificity, the petitioner did not comply. In their submission, the petitioner merely set out numerous articles of the Constitution but failed to demonstrate with precision how each respondent violated those provisions. They relied on Anarita Karimi Njeru v Republic [1979] eKLR and Mumo Matemu v Trusted Society of Human Rights Alliance [2013] eKLR and urged the Court to find that the Petition falls short of the threshold set in Articles 22 and 23 of the Constitution.
[36] On the membership status of the petitioner, the petitioners submitted that the issue is not the baptismal status of the petitioner but whether the South Kenya Lake Field of the SDA Church was constitutionally obligated to host or permit the petitioner to minister within its local churches. They further submitted that a baptismal card is only proof of entry, and that one must further comply with the teachings and regulations of the church and remain a member of good standing.
[37] The respondents responded to the specific allegations of violations and urged the Court to find that none of the alleged violations was proved against them. They accordingly prayed for the dismissal of the Petition with costs.
[38] Since the respondents raised a Preliminary Objection to the Petition, it is imperative for the same to be considered first before a merit consideration of the Petition. As was pointed out in Mukisa Biscuits Manufacturers Ltd v West End Distributors Ltd:
“...a Preliminary Objection consists of a pure point of law which has been pleaded, or which arises by clear implication out of pleadings, and which if argued as a preliminary objection may dispose of the suit. Examples are an objection to the jurisdiction of the court, or a plea of limitation, or a submission that the parties are bound by the contract giving rise to the suit, to refer the dispute to arbitration.”
[39] The respondents contended that the Court lacks the requisite jurisdiction to entertain this Petition. Needless to say that it would be inconsequential for a Court of law to proceed to hear and determine a matter if it lacks the jurisdiction so to do. This was aptly expressed by the Court of Appeal in the Owners of Motor Vessel "Lilian s" vs. Caltex Oil (K) Ltd [1989] KLR 1, thus:
"Jurisdiction is everything. Without it, a court has no power to make one more step. Where a court has no jurisdiction, there would be no basis for a continuation of proceedings pending other evidence. A court of law downs tools in respect of the matter before it the moment it holds the opinion that it is without jurisdiction."
[40] And there is no gainsaying that the question of jurisdiction is one that must be taken in limine . In above case the Court (per Nyarangi, JA ) added that:
"...it is reasonably plain that a question of jurisdiction ought to be raised at the earliest opportunity and the court seized of the matter is then obliged to decide the issue right away on the material before it..."
[41] In the work, Major Law Lexicon, Volume 4, jurisdiction is aptly defined thus:
"By jurisdiction is meant the authority which a Court has to decide matters that are litigated before it, or to take cognizance of matters presented in a formal way for its decision. The limits of this authority are imposed by Statute or Chapter or Commission under which the Court is constituted and may be extended or restricted by similar means. If no restriction or limitation is imposed, the jurisdiction is said to be unlimited. A limitation may be either as to the kind or nature of the actions or the matters of which the particular court has cognizance or as to the area over which the jurisdiction extends, or it may partake of both these characteristics..."
[42] Hence, in Samuel Kamau Macharia & Another v Kenya Commercial Bank Limited & 2 Others [2012] eKLR, the Supreme Court held that:
"A court's jurisdiction flows from either the Constitution or legislation or both. Thus, a court of law can only exercise jurisdiction as conferred by the Constitution or other written law. It cannot arrogate to itself jurisdiction exceeding that which is conferred by law. We agree with counsel for the first and second Respondents in his submission that the issue as to whether a court of law has jurisdiction to entertain a matter before it is not one of mere procedural technicality; it goes to the very heart of the matter, for without jurisdiction, the court cannot entertain any proceedings...Where the Constitution exhaustively provides for the jurisdiction of a court of law, the court must operate within the constitutional limits. It cannot expand its jurisdiction through judicial craft or innovation. Nor can Parliament confer jurisdiction upon a court of law beyond the scope defined by the Constitution. Where the Constitution confers power on Parliament to set the jurisdiction of a court of law or tribunal, the legislature would be within its authority to prescribe the jurisdiction of such a court or tribunal by statute law."
[43] Since the petitioner has, in the main, alleged violations or threatened violations of her rights under Articles 10, 27 and 46 of the Constitution and has accordingly prayed for declaratory and other reliefs from the Court in that regard pursuant to Articles 22 and 23 of the Constitution, there can be no doubt that this Court has jurisdiction to hear and determine the Petition. This is because Article 165(3) of the Constitution sets out the jurisdiction of the High Court in the following terms:
(3) Subject to clause (5), the High Court shall have—
(a) unlimited original jurisdiction in criminal and civil matters;
(b) jurisdiction to determine the question whether a right or fundamental freedom in the Bill of Rights has been denied, violated, infringed or threatened;
(c) jurisdiction to hear an appeal from a decision of a tribunal appointed under this Constitution to consider the removal of a person from office, other than a tribunal appointed under Article 144;
(d) jurisdiction to hear any question respecting the interpretation of this Constitution including the determination of—
(i) the question whether any law is inconsistent with or in contravention of this Constitution;
(ii) the question whether anything said to be done under the authority of this Constitution or of any law is inconsistent with, or in contravention of, this Constitution;
(iii) any matter relating to constitutional powers of State organs in respect of county governments and any matter relating to the constitutional relationship between the levels of government; and
(iv) a question relating to conflict of laws under Article 191; and
(e) any other jurisdiction, original or appellate, conferred on it by legislation.
[44] It is noteworthy however that the jurisdiction point was taken from the point of view of the doctrine of exhaustion. There can be no doubt that alternative dispute resolution mechanisms play a critical role in the administration of justice and indeed, have pride of place in Article 159(2)(c) of the Constitution; which mandates that:
“In exercising judicial authority, the courts and tribunals shall be guided by the following principles…alternative forms of dispute resolution including reconciliation, mediation, arbitration and traditional dispute resolution mechanisms shall be promoted, subject to clause (3).”
[45] To my mind, this provision, far from being a complete ouster of jurisdiction of the Court as was suggested by the respondent, simply provides for a postponement of approach to the Court in favour of the expediency contemplated by pursuing the available
[...truncated]