In Summary
• The Lawyer is further claiming compensation of Sh234,820,000 for the privacy breach done during his arrest at his home before deportation.
• Miguna said after arrest, he was detained incommunicado without charge in contravention of the Constitution of Kenya and tortured for a period of six days.
Lawyer Miguna Miguna on Thursday filed a suit against the Interior CS Fred Matiang’i in Canada seeking Sh1.7 billion compensation.
The case was presented at the Ontario Court of Justice.
He said the fee will cater for the damages that were caused during his deportation, which include assault, defamation and unlawful detention among others.
Wanjiku’s assets in ca if any would have been attached to compensate for Jicho nyanya and Ojingas clear illegalities…while bonobos continue cheering to their further doom…
Lakini hapa jurisdiction hakuna…kesi is dead ab initio…Miguna seeking attention again
I count be wrong but he has no case against those co- defendants. They didn’t deny him any service. Courts have granted immunity to disseminaters of information. For example, you will not take FB to court and win because of information published on their website.
In fact Miguna has a good case against the Kenyan government but in international court. Canada unlike the US, likes to play politically neutral. So the courts will probably claim they have no jurisdiction.
Those 2 companies are registered in Canada so there is jurisdiction. I think he involved Kenyan government in the lawsuit so he could have a better argument for the case.
Miguna is smart to know that Matiangi and Kibicho won’t appear in a Canadian court.
But he knows those 2 companies that acted as intermediaries for Kenyan government will appear.
The issue is that those 2 companies “red-flagged” Miguna based on false information provided by the Kenyan government, and ignored the Kenyan court rulings.
In effect, Miguna was banned from Paypal, Money Gram, and other banking institutions. His bank even wanted to cancel his mortgage in Canada.
But he’s not going after the banks, or airlines that refused to fly him to Kenya, but the data collection companies that red-flagged him based on false-information provided by Kenyan government (defamation). And they refused to rectify the information based on the court ruling.
Jurisdiction is on material acts. Those were not performed in Canada. Not sure I have come across Canadian courts ruling on matters that happened outside Canada. But there could be some. Even US courts limit themselves to pariah states.
Tough to beat data collection companies. They simply collect info, right or wrong. However their client chooses to use, is up to them. How did you determine information by Kenyan government was wrong? Afterall, he still has a case to answer from the swearing in.
Really the people he should have sued were those that denied him services, his mortgage company, paypal. But he knew he was going to lose.
I browsed the lawsuit. Going by the language ( choice of words), Miguna is not really an intellectual. He sometimes uses big words eg despot, but being of elite IQ is not him. Something I noted before.
But what happened in Kenya should not affect him in Canada; remember he went to Canada to seek aslyum away from the Kenyan government.
If someone like Jamal Ahmad Khashoggi seeked asylum in the U.S, did it mean that he couldn’t use financial services in the U.S because the Saudi government declared him “a high risk individual for terrorism”?
Of course, he could enjoy banking services and fly anywhere in the world regardless of what the Saudi government said about him. It shouldn’t be any different for Miguna or any aslyum seeker.
We’re not talking about social media platforms like FB or Twitter but companies whose business is to collect, store, update and pass accurate data about people’s profile to third parties like banks. Those third-parties use that information passed to them to decide if they can grant you their service.
The co-defendants didn’t do their due diligence to find out what that the Kenyan courts ruled about Miguna’s situations. If Miguna was charged in Kenya for financing terrorism, it would be a different story.
He also can’t sue them in Kenya because those companies are licensed in Canada.
You answered yourself here. Condefendants are data collectors. They collect all kinds of data. Some good some bad. It’s up to the client to decide what to use.
You see Miguna knows this and that’s why he didn’t sue the end users of the data. Because they had agreements with him to withdraw their service at any time. PayPal can deny you their services at any time. As along as they don’t discriminate against your age, sex, gender, orientation or national origin, legally they are not committing a civil rights violation. Using PayPal is a privilege not a right(guaranteed) by law. They can deny service based on your hairstyle.
His problem is not with PayPal or the banks, but the companies that are licensed in Canada to provide accurate background information to those financial institutions.
Also, all of his family members living in Canada have been denied financial services because those data sharing companies have refused to acknowledge the ruling of the Kenyan courts on his case.
If those data sharing companies collect information from governments, why can’t they also collect information from the courts?
Despite his emotional outbursts, Miguna is a smart lawyer. He’s actually won landmark cases in Canada’s supreme court so he knows what he’s doing.
Are Canadian courts expeditious ama hii ni mambo itadrag till no one cares any more? I’ve met people like Miguna before, sticklers to principles even where it is detrimental to finding negotiated solutions. Pragmatism is to me always preferable. Some would call it cowardice. But I’d rather stay out of the way of a rogue elephant than insist it is invading my property. Anyway, namuelewa, good luck to him.
Canadian courts can be expeditious. But like someone pointed out above, they might dilly dally on this case because they do not like rocking the boat. For the sake of my argument, I will assume that they will be the former
In this particular case, Miguna’s penchant for being a stickler to detail could actually be useful not just to him, but to other potential victims as well.
The fact that he was denied service and almost lost his mortgage based on false information is a tricky situation. A case whose judgement might be a milestone in terms of data usage and presentation. Does the compiler have a responsibility in assuring the quality and accuracy of their information?
He could later file a case against the user to let the court decide whether the end user has responsibility to use credible sources.
If a Canadian was denied credit in Kenya based on a credit report from a company that operates multinationally, the Canadian ought to have the ability to sue the company in Kenyan courts
This case is straight forward, if I sell expired soda in my shop, I’m gonna be liable even though I’m not the soda producer. Those two companies arent public or media platforms where individual entities presenting information are acting on their own capacity to then transfer liability.