Court blocks NGO Board Sale Due to  Costs of LGBTQ case

Court blocks NGO Board Sale Due to  Costs of LGBTQ case

Court blocks NGO Board Sale Due to  Costs of LGBTQ case

After the Non-fees in the LGBTQ dispute, the Supreme Court on Friday put a hold on the sale of  their property. The NGO Board had gone to court to object to the sale of its assets in order to pay  for Eric Gitari and the Katiba Institute, among other parties involved in the historic  case, to have their legal fees paid.

The Board said in court that it had to make a decision since it was unaware of the unpaid balance. As a result, the Supreme Court also invalidated the Deputy Registrar’s notification requesting payment from the Board. “Leave be and is hereby granted to the Applicant to file and serve the Reference against the decision of the Deputy Registrar on taxation of costs dated 9th June 2023 within 7days of delivery of this ruling,” the court instructed.

An order preventing the first respondent, Auctioneers, their agents, employees, and/or anybody working on their behalf from selling the applicant’s property has been issued, delaying the execution of the decisions of the Deputy Registrar of this Court of 9th June 2023.The board claimed that due to unforeseen circumstances, it was unable to give directions to its counsel about the case at the time of notice.

“Its legal manager was ill and absent from work the entire week. The instant application was filed without excessive delay when the Legal Manager resumed his or her duties, the board informed the court.After the Board decided not to register an organization promoting the rights of the LGBTQ community, the respondents sued the Board in court. Last month, the court reaffirmed their earlier ruling, declaring that everyone in Kenya has the right to form associations, and criticizing the board for refusing to register the organizations. Because the agency disregarded the court’s order to pay the expenses of the lawsuit, the respondents moved to have the respondents’ property put up for auction.

“We grant the third request made in the aforementioned Motion, suspending the execution that the first respondent had started. In addition, the Supreme Court prohibited the first respondent and the auctioneers from selling or otherwise disposing of any of the applicant’s proclaimed property or household goods while the instant action was being heard and decided.The Supreme Court further mandated that the new application’s costs be subject to the resolution of the ongoing case.