A Kenyan woman has received a temporary reprieve from deportation after a judge ruled that her original asylum claim was not properly considered, particularly regarding the social stigma she faced after being accused of witchcraft. The 63-year-old woman, identified only as "JB" in court to protect her identity, had fled Kenya following a series of personal hardships in a polygamous household.

JB had lived in Kenya in what was described as an unhappy relationship with a 75-year-old husband who had another wife. She cared for her own son, now 42, as well as three children fathered by her husband and the other wife. Following the death of the other wife and one of her daughters, JB said she was accused of witchcraft, a charge that carried significant social consequences in her community.

She left Kenya in 2010 and arrived in the United Kingdom in 2014, but did not submit her asylum application until 2023. The delay in mentioning the witchcraft accusations was cited by the original tribunal as a reason to doubt the credibility of her claim, with the initial judge describing the witchcraft allegations as fabricated to strengthen an otherwise weak case.

During the appeal, JB explained that the "shame and trauma" she experienced made it difficult for her to reveal the accusations earlier. She emphasized that returning to Kenya would pose a danger to her due to the hostility she faced.

The upper tier asylum tribunal, presided over by Judge Joanna McWilliam, ruled that the prior judgment contained a legal error related to how the applicant’s credibility had been assessed. McWilliam concluded that this error was significant enough to materially affect the case’s outcome and ordered that JB’s asylum claim be reheard by a new tribunal.

The decision highlights complexities in asylum cases where cultural and social factors, such as stigmatization related to witchcraft accusations, may affect an applicant’s ability to disclose all relevant information at the earliest opportunity. While concerns about the timing and credibility of claims remain central to the asylum process, this ruling underscores the need for careful consideration of personal circumstances that could influence a claimant’s behaviour or testimony.