The Court of Appeal on Friday compensated a former army officer who was forced to resign at gunpoint over his father's political 'sins'.
The court ruled that Lieutenant Colonel Benjamin Muema was illegally sacked in 1993 after his father, Samuel Muema joined the opposition's Democratic Party (DP) in 1992.
Muema told the court that he was forced to resign because the army did not approve his father's dalliance with the opposition party.
Army bosses were also infuriated when the older Muema went ahead to give the house in Mwala to be used to host DP's offices, which saw his son sent to dissuade him.
The court documented that on March 29, 1993, he was confronted by commandant Col Kunyiha who flushed out a resignation letter for him to sign.
When he refused, a gun was pulled out and aimed at him and was also told that his family would be harmed if he refused to sign it, forcing him to put his signature.
He was then detained in several police stations over numerous charges, including robbery with violence, as the army accused his father of frustrating the government.
The court also heard that he was forced to write a letter incriminating himself of robbery with robbery violence, even after his father heeded his calls and cut his links with DP.
This came at a time when multiparty democracy was still young, and KANU was doing all it could to suppress the growth of emerging blocs.
In the case that has been before courts for 18 years, the three-judge bench consisting Justices Asike Makhandia, William Ouko and Roslyn Nambuye ruled in favour of Muema.
They read malice in the charges and awarded him Sh6.4 million in compensation for his tribulations, ruling that there is no proof that he was involved in the said criminal charges.
“The unsuccessful initiation of a large number of criminal cases based on the same facts and background leaves no doubt in our minds that there was malice, especially when no effort was made by the appellants to tender evidence in court to justify those prosecutions as the witness tendered in support of their case was categorical in oath that he was not privy to the events that led to those prosecutions and knew nothing about it,” the court said.