Court orders temporary suspension of alcohol law

Consumers of alcoholic drinks have a reason to smile after the High Court temporarily halted the implementation of the new alcohol law.

The temporary order stopping the implementation of the law known as Alcoholic Drinks Control Act 2010 regulations was given by High Court judge Mr Justice John Mwera following an application by bar operators from Murang'a in central Kenya.

The bar operators based their case on grounds that the transitional clause under the law allows for nine months compliance period which is yet to lapse.

The group also argued that the district liquor licensing committee has not been constituted to issue them with new document.
Under the new law businessmen are required to close bars and restaurants that do not conform to the Alcoholic Drinks Control Act 2010 regulations.

This is especially on the opening hours and those that are located less than 300 meters from a learning institution.

The Alcoholic Control Drinks Acts prohibits the selling of alcohol before 5 pm on weekdays and 2 pm at the weekends, and after 11 pm all week.

The Act came into law on November 22, but the regulations, which would announce its commencement date, are yet to be gazetted.

This law they said exposes them to harassment such as closure of their business premises in the event they fail to observe the new operating hours.

And as a result of this they believe the new law is discriminative and inconsistent with the Constitution as it denies them the right to enjoy their property.

On Friday, Justice Mwera directed the bar operators to serve their suit papers on the National Campaign Against Drug Abuse Authority
Attorney-General Amos Wako and Internal Security minister George Saitoti.

The case will be heard on January 18.

A similar case was filed in court on December 27 by 55 Embu bar owners' Welfare Association.

However, Justice Daniel Musinga who heard the case declined to give any temporary orders then.

In their case, the group had said the new law has an effect of edging them out of business.

They had also said that the implementation of the new law contravenes their right to own property and protection as guaranteed under Article 40 of the Constitution.