A self styled human rights defender stands exposed after a High Court judgment revealed he bankrolled the importation of a luxury Range Rover Sport while advancing the claim in the name of a registered person living with disability, only for the case to collapse amid questions over his true intentions.
Justice Benjamin Musyoki of the Anti Corruption and Economic Crimes Division, ruling on 30 October 2026 in Constitutional Petition No. E007 of 2026, dismissed the petition brought by Francis Awino, president of Bunge la Mwananchi. The activist had sought orders forcing the Kenya Revenue Authority to release a 2018 white Land Rover Range Rover Sport SE imported from Japan for Collins Matasi Yatundu, who is registered with the National Council for Persons with Disabilities.
Awino argued that KRA’s handling of the duty free exemption application amounted to discrimination on grounds of disability, violated constitutional rights to equality, dignity and property, and involved illegal demands by officers for payments to facilitate clearance. He further asked the court to direct the Ethics and Anti Corruption Commission to investigate the Commissioner General over the alleged extortion.
The court found none of these claims held. KRA had neither approved nor rejected the exemption application, which remained under active review, so the petition was premature.
No final decision existed for challenge under the East African Community Customs Management Act, and available administrative remedies had not been exhausted.
Allegations of discriminatory treatment, verbal demands and dignity violations lacked any supporting evidence or documentation. Detention of the vehicle while tax processes remained open did not, by itself, establish a constitutional breach.
What proved decisive was the paper trail on financing. In its replying affidavit KRA produced M Pesa statements belonging to Yatundu that identified Awino as the source of the funds used to import the vehicle.
The authority contended that the activist was attempting to use the court to enforce an illegality under the cover of public interest litigation. Justice Musyoki noted that Yatundu, the person whose disability credentials were at the centre of the claim, had not himself moved the court.
The judge also recorded evidence of prior transactions between the two men and questioned whether the petition had genuinely been brought in the public interest.
He dismissed the case and ordered Awino to pay the costs of the proceedings to the Commissioner General, KRA and the EACC.
The arrangement raises a straightforward conflict.
Persons living with disabilities may apply for tax exemptions on vehicles that support mobility, subject to proper documentation, verification by the National Council for Persons with Disabilities and satisfaction of the conditions under the East African Community Customs Management Act and the Persons with Disabilities Act.
When a third party funds the purchase of a high value luxury SUV while simultaneously launching constitutional proceedings in the disabled person’s name, the public interest character of the litigation comes under legitimate scrutiny.
Incomplete paperwork and unresolved applications routinely delay clearance for ordinary importers without amounting to discrimination. Here the court found the process had not even reached a decision point.
Awino has faced similar allegations before. Earlier in 2026 he was charged with attempted extortion after the Kenya Wildlife Service reported that he presented court documents and allegedly threatened a removal petition and negative publicity against its Director General in a bid to extract money.
He denied the charge, was released on bond and maintains that such prosecutions amount to retaliation for his advocacy. He has filed numerous other petitions challenging appointments, infrastructure projects and state officials, several of which have been struck out or dismissed on procedural grounds.
The ruling leaves the Range Rover Sport still subject to normal customs processes. It also leaves ordinary Kenyans with a clearer view of how disability credentials can be placed at the centre of a luxury import while the funder and petitioner occupy the same person.
Courts have signalled that they will not act as receivers of complaints or micromanagers of administrative processes when evidence of rights violations is absent and when the paper trail points to private financial involvement rather than pure public interest.
For genuine persons living with disability who rely on the exemption framework, the case underscores the cost of arrangements that invite judicial doubt about who is truly driving the claim.
There's no story that cannot be told. We cover the stories that others don't want to be told, we bring you all the news you need. If you have tips, exposes or any story you need to be told bluntly and all queries write to us [email protected] also find us on Telegram
