Declaring a constitutional provision unconstitutional is quite rare. What has precedence internationally is declaring a constitutional amendment unconstitutional. Courts in India and Ireland have walked a similar though not identical path.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basic_Structure

The case by the Indian Court was that certain parts of the constitution were beyond amendment by parliament. Is that probably similar to the position held by the bill of rights in our proposed constitution? Our case might be different because we are not talking about a constitutional amendment per se.

The Kenyan judges decision is indeed a reason for healthy debate. My question would be can a Constitutional Court sitting after the enactment of the new constitution declare any section of the same constitution that appears to contradict the bill of rights or fundamental freedoms (basic structure?) null and void?

The following is an interesting read if you have the time

https://webspace.utexas....utional_constit%232C.pdf

@there was no Kenya before 1963. These treaties we were having with Arabs , Egyptians and others over our country should be re-looked at. We are not free men in our own land. we cannot make our own laws, we cannot use our own water.
We are rubber-stamping the notion that we are lesser beings by having foreign interests dictate the agenda of our land.

Am looking at the times the post were posted. Wazua must be operating +4 GMT. That besides

The Judges erred in my opinion. What that judgement means is that we have a completely secular state. Remove the word God from the National anthem, prayers during national days, opening of parliament etc. It also means that it is not legal to go and state before a magistrate about your faith. Bible and Qurans should not be used to take oaths. I do not know which civil process is free in the Kenyan courts. If you file for divorce you pay filing charges as a christian and they ask you your religion. The hearing of a divorce between two christians takes place in a court supported by the tax payers. If you die and you have no will, the State adminsters your estate. Is this not paid for by taxpayers. Why not give others the opportunity to have similar cases but profess a different faith or their have agreed to different kinds of contract.

The ruling also nullifies the marriage act as I understand it. If Muslim marriages are recognised by law, what mechanism do you have for resolving disputes arising therefrom?

That ruling can also be used against christians. Do not celebrate. It is what is happening in the western world. If I were one of the petitioners, I would mourn. It is the case of one monkey laughing about the back of another monkey

Kindly advise what the British colony was called then...

British East Africa and included Uganda