The Kenya Christian Professionals' Forum has filed a notice of appeal against a ruling allowing the gay community to formally register their organisation.
Appeal Court justices Philip Waki, Asike Makhandia and Martha Koome last month upheld the High Court decision. They said no human beings should be denied their fundamental rights because of how they choose to live their life.
However, justices Daniel Musinga and Roselyn Nambuye dissented, saying the High Court had no jurisdiction to hear the petition filed by Eric Gitari.
Gitari is a co-founder of the National Gay and Lesbian Human Rights Commission
In the notice to the Supreme Court, the Christian forum says, "Being dissatisfied with the entire judgment and order of the appellate court, intend to appeal against the whole decision".
Court documents indicate Gitari had approached the NGO Coordination Board seeking to register their NGO.
The core objectives of the proposed organisation, according to the Gitari, is the advancement of human rights. Specifically, the proposed NGO would seek to address the violence and human rights abuses suffered by gay and lesbian people.
The board, however, rejected his application for registration on the basis that the people whose rights the proposed NGO sought to protect are gay and lesbian.
Gitari then petitioned the High Court, which allowed him to register the proposed NGO.
In the decision, justices Isaac Lenaola, Mumbi Ngugi and George Odunga declared Gitari was entitled to exercise his constitutionally guaranteed freedom to associate by forming an association.
It was the bench's finding that the board violated Gitari's right to non-discrimination by refusing to accept the names proposed on the basis that the NGO sought to advocate for the rights of persons who are not socially accepted.
"As we observed above, our understanding of the objectives of the proposed NGO is the protection of persons whose sexual orientation is gay or lesbian, as well as persons who are transgender or intersex, from discrimination and other violations of their rights.
"It is not for the promotion of the sexual acts 'against the order of nature' prohibited by the Penal Code, nor is it to advance paedophilia as submitted by the board, which are criminal offences with respect to which clear penal consequences are provided," the bench ruled.
(Edited by Eliud Kibii)
