Jessicar Clarise Wanjiru v Davinci Aesthetics & Reconstruction Centre & 2 others [2017] eKLR 12. The Respondents application also to enjoin the said Tony Bogonko T/A Loopah Experience as an interested party was allowed by consent on 6th February 2017. However, there is nothing to show that the intended interested party was served. 13. The crux of the submissions by counsel for the petitioner is that no consent was sought and obtained from the petitioner the and that there was "injury to her person and exploitation, and, that she suffered emotionally. 14. The Respondents counsel submitted that the petitioner has not established violation of her rights,[1] that the provisions of the constitution alleged to have been violated have not been set out and that the violations have not been particularized and reiterated that the petitioner did not prove that she suffered any damage.[2] 15. The following passages from two decisions by the European Court of Human Right are worth quoting:“[A] person’s image constitutes one of the chief attributes of his or her personality, as it reveals the person’s unique characteristics and distinguishes the person from his or her peers. The right to the protection of one’s image is thus one of the essential components of personal development. It mainly presupposes the individual’s right to control the use of that image, including the right to refuse publication thereof ...”[3] “[F]reedom of expression includes the publication of photos ... This is nonetheless an area in which the protection of the rights and reputation of others takes on particular importance, as the photos may contain very personal or even intimate information about an individual or his or her family ...”[4] 16. The right to privacy is guaranteed under Article 31 of the Constitution of Kenya. Privacy has been defined as “The right of the individual to be protected against intrusion into his personal life or affairs, or those of his family, by direct physical means or by publication of information.”[5]In the above sense any intrusion of personal life by whatever means or form such as photography, written articles or caricatures may be ground for an action for breach of privacy. 17. In simple terms, image rights refer to a person’s right to commercialize aspects of his personality such as physical appearance, pictures or caricatures, signature, personal logos and slogans, and also the right to prevent other people from commercially making use of them. In a claim of this nature, the plaintiff raises wrongful infringement of three inter-related, but distinct, personality interests, namely identity, privacy and dignity. 18. Identity is defined as a person’s uniqueness which individualizes such person, and is manifested in various facets of personality (or indicia) which include, among other things, one’s physical appearance or image and is considered a separate right of personality.[6] 19. Features of a person’s identity have been held to be deserving of legal protection.[7] Identity is infringed by the falsification of a person’s true image or identity. A recognized form of falsification occurs where a person’s image is used or appropriated without his or her permission for advertising purposes, creating the false impression that such person has consented to such conduct or supports the advertised product, service or business.[8] 20. But an infringement of identity may also, although not necessarily, be accompanied by an infringement of privacy. The concepts of privacy and identity are closely related. A breach of privacy http://www.kenyalaw.org - Page 3/9