Coalition on Violence against Women & 11 others v Attorney General & 5 others
The bottom line
#Supreme Court allows friend-of-the-court brief from Katiba Institute on state obligations in sexual violence cases.
What this practically means
#Katiba Institute, a non-profit, applied to be a friend of the court in a Supreme Court case. The Court allowed it because the Institute has expertise in human rights, is independent, and its brief addresses new legal points about the state's duties in sexual violence cases by non-state actors. The Court will consider the written brief without oral arguments.
Executive summary
#Questions the Court framed
#The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.
- 1.Whether the intended amicus curiae, Katiba Institute, should be granted leave to join and participate in the proceedings as amicus curiae.
Key legal issues
#Whether Katiba Institute meets the criteria for admission as amicus curiae under Rule 19 of the Supreme Court Rules, 2020 and the guidelines in Trusted Society of Human Rights Alliance v. Mumo Matemu.
The Court held that Katiba Institute met the criteria because it demonstrated expertise in constitutional and human rights law, its proposed brief addressed novel points of law not covered by the parties, and the parties consented to its admission.
The Court considered the application under Rule 19 of the Supreme Court Rules, 2020, which requires proven expertise, independence and impartiality, or public interest. It noted that Katiba Institute had participated as amicus in the lower courts, its brief addressed issues of state obligations in sexual and gender-based violence cases not raised by the parties, and all parties consented. The Court found the submissions would be of valuable assistance and allowed the application, limiting participation to the filed brief without oral submissions.
Legal principles established
#- A friend of the court must show expertise, independence, or public interest.
- The brief must address legal points not already argued by the parties.
- The brief should be filed on time.
- The Court may limit participation to written submissions only.
- Consent of parties is considered but not required.
- In public interest cases, each side pays its own costs.
Court orders
#- 1.The applicant’s Notice of Motion dated 7th October 2025 and filed before this Court on 14th October 2025 be and is hereby allowed.
- 2.The amicus brief attached to the application is deemed as duly filed with the Court’s leave, and it is directed that the Court shall consider the brief without the necessity of the applicant making oral submissions at the hearing of the petitions.
- 3.Each party shall bear their costs.
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Rule 19 of the Supreme Court Rules, 2020
Quotable passages
#Verbatim from the judgment, each located to the page it appears on in the official PDF — so these can be cited and checked directly.
The applicant’s Notice of Motion dated 7th October 2025 and filed before this Court on 14th October 2025 be and is hereby allowed.
The amicus brief attached to the application is deemed as duly filed with the Court’s leave, and it is directed that the Court shall consider the brief without the necessity of the applicant making oral submissions at the hearing of the petitions.
Each party shall bear their costs.
An amicus brief should address point(s) of law not already addressed by the parties to the suit or by other amici, so as to introduce only novel aspects of the legal issue in question that aid the development of the law.
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#When to seek amicus status
The ruling confirms that amicus briefs must bring novel legal arguments. Lawyers should ensure their proposed brief addresses gaps in the parties' submissions, demonstrates expertise, and is filed promptly. The Court may deny oral argument, so focus on written advocacy.
Relevance to corporate human rights duties
While this ruling is procedural, it could affect businesses if the underlying case expands state obligations for non-state actor violence. Companies with operations in conflict zones should monitor for potential new due diligence requirements.
Potential for stronger victim protections
Katiba Institute's brief argues for state accountability in sexual violence cases. If successful, victims may gain clearer legal standards for state obligations and remedies. This ruling allows that argument to be heard.
Frequently asked questions
#What is a friend of the court in Kenya?+
A friend of the court (amicus curiae) is an expert who provides legal arguments on new points of law not raised by the parties. In Kenya, the Supreme Court allows them only if they have expertise, independence, or public interest.
How do I become a friend of the court in Kenya?+
You apply under Rule 19 of the Supreme Court Rules, 2020. You must show proven expertise, independence, impartiality, or public interest, and your brief must address novel legal issues not already covered by the parties.
What was the Katiba Institute case about in Kenya?+
Katiba Institute sought to be a friend of the court in a Supreme Court case about state obligations for sexual and gender-based violence by non-state actors in conflict. The Court allowed their brief.
Can a friend of the court make oral arguments in Kenya's Supreme Court?+
Not always. The Court may limit participation to written briefs without oral submissions, as in the Katiba Institute case, to save time and focus on the legal arguments.
Later judgments citing this (1)
#Judgments in the corpus that rely on this one. Where the Court said how it treated the authority, that is shown.
- Kemoi v State & another (Civil Appeal E043 of 2022) [2023] KECA 1542 (KLR)[2023] KECA 1542 (KLR)15 Dec 2023applied
Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Coalition on Violence against Women & 11 others v Attorney General & 5 others", Case Analysis (2026). Petition (Application) E041 of 2025. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.orghttps://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kesc/2026/45/eng@2026-06-19
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.