By Andrew Kariuki

The Court of Appeal has declared two provisions of the Computer Misuse and Cybercrimes Act, 2018 unconstitutional while upholding the rest of the law, in a significant ruling on the regulation of online conduct in Kenya.

In a judgment delivered by a three-judge bench comprising Patrick O. Kiage, Asike-Makhandia O. Muchelule and William Korir, the court ruled that Sections 22 and 23 of the Act are unconstitutional because they are overly broad and could potentially criminalise innocent conduct.

Sections 22 and 23 of the law criminalise the intentional publication of false or misleading information.

Section 22 makes it an offence to knowingly publish false or misleading data intended to be treated as genuine. The provision limits freedom of expression where such information could promote war, incite violence, amount to hate speech, spread ethnic hatred or discrimination, or harm the rights and reputation of others.

Under the law, offenders could face a fine of up to Ksh5 million, imprisonment for up to two years, or both.

Section 23, on the other hand, criminalises knowingly publishing false information likely to cause panic, chaos, violence, or damage a person’s reputation, with penalties of a fine of up to Ksh5 million, imprisonment for up to 10 years, or both.

The case arose from an appeal filed by the Bloggers Association of Kenya (BAKE), which challenged a 2020 High Court ruling by James Makau that had upheld the constitutionality of the law.

BAKE had asked the court to declare several sections of the Computer Misuse and Cybercrimes Act unconstitutional, arguing that they violated constitutional rights including freedom of expression, privacy, and the right to a fair trial.

However, the Court of Appeal largely agreed with the High Court and found that most provisions of the law were constitutional and justified under Article 24 of the Constitution, which allows limitation of certain rights where necessary.

“The intention of section 27 is clear. It is aimed at addressing harmful conduct occasioning harassment through an internet-enabled platform, which the legislature had the mandate to address,” the judges stated.

The court affirmed that Parliament has the authority to create criminal offences regulating conduct in cyberspace in order to protect the public from online harassment, fraud and other digital harms.

The judges emphasised that digital spaces must remain subject to the rule of law.

“Cyberspace cannot be a law-free environment, a virtual jungle or wild west devoid of criminal sanctions essential to deter its abuse,” the bench stated.

The court also dismissed BAKE’s challenge to Section 28 of the Act, which criminalises cybersquatting, ruling that the provision legitimately protects intellectual property rights and consumer trust in the digital economy.

According to the judges, cybersquatting undermines trust in digital commerce and therefore does not merit constitutional protection.

However, the court concluded that Sections 22 and 23 were too broadly drafted, raising the risk that innocent individuals could be caught within their scope.

“In the end, this appeal partially succeeds to the extent that we find sections 22 and 23 of the Act unconstitutional for being too broad to the extent that they are likely to net innocent persons,” the judges ruled.

Apart from that finding, all other grounds of appeal were dismissed.

The appellate court also issued guidance to courts and investigative agencies implementing the law, cautioning that surveillance and interception powers must be exercised carefully.

Judges and investigators were advised to clearly specify the offence under investigation, the duration of interception, and how the collected data will be examined, stored and eventually destroyed.

The bench further warned that the law could be misused for political purposes if not applied cautiously.

“Courts must be alive and alert to the risk that the Act can be deployed for political purposes and must carefully scrutinise every application before granting any order,” the judges said.

By Andrew Kariuki

The Judiciary of Kenya has congratulated Kenya’s newest advocates following their official admission to the Bar during a ceremony held on March 6, 2026, at the Milimani Ceremonial Hall in Nairobi.

The admission ceremony marked the final step for law graduates who successfully completed their legal training, pupillage requirements and the rigorous bar examinations, allowing them to formally join the legal profession as advocates of the High Court of Kenya.

In a message shared across its official platforms, the Judiciary commended the newly admitted advocates for their dedication and perseverance in reaching the milestone, noting that admission to the Bar represents both an honour and a responsibility to uphold justice and the rule of law.

The ceremony forms part of the Judiciary’s constitutional mandate to admit qualified legal practitioners to practice before the courts.

Once admitted, advocates become officers of the court and are expected to adhere to the highest standards of professionalism, integrity and ethical conduct in the legal profession.

The event brought together members of the legal fraternity, including judicial officers, senior advocates, family members, and friends who gathered to celebrate the achievements of the new lawyers.

For many of the advocates, the moment marked the culmination of years of study and professional preparation, as they now embark on careers that will see them represent clients, shape jurisprudence and contribute to the administration of justice in Kenya.

Admission to the Bar grants the advocates the legal authority to appear before Kenyan courts, provide legal representation, and offer professional legal services in accordance with the law.

The Judiciary encouraged the new advocates to serve with dedication and integrity, emphasizing that the legal profession plays a vital role in safeguarding constitutional values and protecting the rights of all citizens.

By Andrew Kariuki

Deputy Chief Justice Philomena Mwilu has called on judges of the Employment and Labour Relations Court (ELRC) to strengthen access to justice for migrant workers, noting that labour migration disputes are increasingly presenting complex transnational legal challenges.

Speaking while closing the 2026 Annual Conference of ELRC Judges, themed “Labour Migration and Access to Justice,” the Deputy Chief Justice emphasized that Kenyan workers do not lose their constitutional protections simply because they cross international borders.

She said the justice system must remain accessible even when the alleged violations occur outside the country.

“A people-centred justice approach requires this Court not merely to resolve disputes, but to examine how our procedures, remedies, partnerships and jurisprudence can remove barriers, empower agency, preserve human dignity (utu) and generate outcomes that restore social equilibrium,” Mwilu stated.

The Deputy Chief Justice noted that labour migration disputes frequently involve power imbalances, exploitation and trauma, particularly among low-wage domestic workers navigating complex cross-border recruitment systems.

Mwilu explained that the Judiciary’s framework on Social Transformation through Access to Justice (STAJ) requires institutions to design justice systems that are accessible, affordable and effective, especially for vulnerable groups.

“Migrant workers, especially low-wage domestic workers navigating transnational recruitment systems, represent precisely the justice-seekers contemplated by STAJ. Their justice journeys often traverse multiple jurisdictions, power imbalances, trauma and economic precarity,” she said.

According to the DCJ, labour migration cases offer a critical test of whether the justice system can respond effectively to the realities faced by vulnerable workers whose disputes extend across multiple jurisdictions.

Mwilu also acknowledged the role played by institutional partners such as the International Labour Organization and Global Justice Kenya, saying such collaborations help courts better understand the human impact behind labour migration cases.

The partners shared insights on emerging labour migration trends, international labour standards and the challenges migrant workers encounter while working abroad.

The Deputy Chief Justice further urged judges to examine employment contracts more critically in migrant-worker disputes, warning that some agreements may conceal coercion, exploitation, and structural inequality.

She encouraged the development of jurisprudence addressing issues such as recruitment accountability, joint liability and enforcement of employment rights arising from foreign-based work arrangements, within the framework of Kenya’s Constitution.

The conference brought together judges, legal practitioners, and stakeholders to examine the legal, institutional and human rights dimensions of labour migration, as the Judiciary continues to refine its response to cross-border employment disputes.