Court dismisses case against 'poorly organised' Stanbic Yetu concert

Justice Lawrence Mugambi, in a judgment delivered on September 10, 2026, said COFEK had made extensive allegations that the concert was poorly organised but had not produced sufficient and reliable evidence to substantiate them.

COFEK had alleged that the event was characterised by poor sound and visual quality, chaotic seating, obstructed views, congestion, inadequate sanitation and insufficient security, among other shortcomings.

The federation argued that the shortcomings amounted to violations of consumers’ rights under Article 46 of the Constitution and the Consumer Protection Act and sought compensation for ticket holders.

Through lawyer Ceceil Miller, Stanbic Bank argued that there was  no evidence that the main area screens failed to project during Sauti Sol and Boys II Men performances, as the screens that were mounted were new and of good quality and urged the court to dismiss the case 

However, the court found that the burden of proving the alleged violations rested with COFEK and that the evidence presented did not meet that threshold.

Justice Mugambi noted that some of the allegations relied on hearsay and that electronic material referred to by the petitioner had not been properly placed before the court and authenticated as required by law.

The judge also found that an apology issued after the event was not, on its own, sufficient evidence to prove the specific allegations made against the respondents.

“While the Petitioner was able to draft a good pleading that articulated the grievances of the concertgoers, it, on the contrary, invested minimal effort and skill in gathering credible evidence,” the judge held.

The court consequently ruled that the allegations remained unsubstantiated by sufficient and reliable evidence.

“The upshot is that this Petition fails and is hereby dismissed,” Justice Mugambi ruled.

Despite dismissing the petition, the court had earlier held that COFEK had standing to bring the matter as public-interest litigation. It also held that constitutional consumer rights under Article 46 cannot simply be excluded or reduced by contractual terms in tickets.

The court further rejected the argument that the arbitration clause contained in the tickets prevented the constitutional petition from being heard.