Ainsworth Maragara Kithinji v Director of Public Prosecutions & Director of Criminal Investigations [2016] KEHC 649 (KLR)

REPUBLIC OF KENYA

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA

AT NAIROBI

JUDICIAL REVIEW

MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION NO.  457 OF 2016

IN THE MATER OF AN APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO COMMENCE   PROCEEDINGS IN THE NATURE OF JUDICIAL REVIEW

AND

IN THE MATTER OF LAW REFORM ACT SECTION 8 AND 9   CHAPTER 26 LAWS OF KENYA

AND

IN THE MATTER OF DECISION BY CABINET SECRETARY, STATE MINISTRY FOR WATER AND IRRIGATION

AND

IN THE MATTER OF SECTION 7 OF THE STATE CORPORATIONS ACT

AND

IN THE MATTER OF ARTICLE 10. 22. 23, 47 AND 48 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF KENYA

BETWEEN

AINSWORTH MARAGARA KITHINJI……….…….........…......…..APPLICANT

VERSUS

THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS…..........…1ST RESPONDENT

THE DIRECTOR OF CRIMINAL INVESTIGATIONS ….….2ND RESPONDENT

RULING

1. By a chamber summons dated 28th September 2016 under  certificate  of urgency, the exparte  applicant  MR AINSWORTH  MARAGARA  KITHINJI  seeks   from this court  orders that:

i. Spent

ii. Leave be granted to apply for the following orders.

iii. An order  of certiorari be granted  by this  court to bring  into this  court and quash  the respondent’s  decision  of    7th September 2016 or arraigning, charging and  or prosecuting the applicant.

iv. An order of prohibition be issues by this Honourable court to prevent the respondents from continued prosecution pending the hearing and determination of this suit.

v. Grant of leave to act as stay of the proceedings in MILIMANI CM CRIMINAL 1373 OF 2016 REPUBLIC VS AINSWORTH KITHINJI MARAGARA.

vi. Costs of and incidental to the application be in the cause.

2. The application is supported  by the statutory  statement , the verifying affidavit  sworn by the applicant  and Annexture   “AMK1” which  is copy  of charge  sheet  and  bond  deposit  receipt  dated  7th September  2016 for  kshs  100,000 issued  to the applicant   in criminal  case No.1373/2016.

3. The exparte  applicant’s  case as per  the grounds on the face of  the  statutory  statement  as verified  by the affidavit   is that on  6th September  2016,  the 2nd  respondent  Director of  Criminal Investigations  arrested the  applicant  in a grotesque  commando style while jetting  back from  Rio De Jeneiro  where  he  was   executing  his official  duties as an  official of  Athletics  Kenya  and Deputy  Coach  of field  and track events.

4. That  the  1st respondent  Director  of Public  Prosecutions  made a decision  to charge  the applicant   on  7th September  2016  for stealing contrary  to Section 268(1)  as read with   Section  275  of the Penal Code , Cap  63  Laws of Kenya;

5. That the said   decision  to charge  the exparte  applicant is irregular, irrational, whimsical, in bad faith and an abuse of the prosecutorial powers and full of apparent bias, unreasonableness  or false  innuendos.  That  the said alleged  things  capable  of  being   stolen  were seized  from the safe  custody of NOCK and not  AK after  safe keeping;

6. That the respondent’s decision to charge the applicant  is political  and made  in bad  faith  to appease  the public   and  as a cover up to mismanagement  issue of  sports  in Kenya  which the applicant  has  no control  save for  National Olympics  Committee of Kenya.

7. That  the  said  decision to charge  the applicant   is prima facie  unconstitutional for being against  fair  exercise of  prosecutorial  discretion and against  the  faith of criminal  justice  system.

8. That the said  decision  sets a  dangerous   precedent   and stand out  as dangerous rodents eating  at the very roots of  prosecutorial  discretion, constitutionalism  and the rule  of  law that  ought  to be safeguarded  by the constitution  of Kenya  2010  and all persons  responsible  for implementation and  execution  of the Constitution.

9. That there is  real and  present  danger  that unless  halted  by this Honourable  court, criminal justice process  will be used   as a cover up of mismanagement  issues  and  manipulation by  Cabinet Secretaries  who fail in their   part and  hence further the unconstitutional acts  and set in motion  foundations  of blatant   disregard  for the constitution and statute  criminal  law.

10. That there  is urgent   need for this court to  move with  speed as  a custodian of the majesty of  the  constitution and strike  a blow for the principles of reasonable prosecutorial discretion, constitutionalism  and the rule  of law  by halting  the said decision made by  respondents  in bad faith.

11. That it is   just and   equitable   that this application be heard and determined on priority basis.

12. That  the applicant  is apprehensive  and concerned   that if the  respondents  are allowed  to continue  prosecuting him,  then the  prosecutorial   discretion   and  independence  will be dealt  a great  blow   and the people  of Kenya  will suffer  considering   the ongoing  investigations of  corruption  in the sports sector   and the applicant  being used   as a  sacrificial  lamb.

13. That the applicant  is apprehensive  that unless this court   issues  certiorari  order quashing  the  decision of  the respondents and a  prohibition order preventing  the respondents  from continued  prosecution, then innocent citizens  will suffer  in the altar  of  prosecutorial  bias  and being used  as a scapegoats while  real culprits  are scot  free.

14. The verifying  affidavit by the applicant  who is   also the  Principal  of Itugururu High School verifies   the above  stated  grounds   as stated  in the statutory  statement  while  annexing the  exhibited  charge  sheet  and deposit  receipt  for bail  in criminal case No.1373  of  2016.

15. When this  application  came before  me  on  28th September  2016 under certificate  of  urgency, I certified  it as  urgent  and  directed  the applicant   to serve  the respondents  for interpartes consideration  on 4th October  2016.

16. On  the latter  date,  the respondents  appeared  through Mr Okello  advocate  who sought   time to  file  a replying  affidavit  and  was granted 15 days, but he did not file  any replying  affidavit.

17. When   the matter came up for hearing yesterday which   was 16th November 2016, the respondent’s counsel   was nonetheless   permitted   to respond to the application on points of law only.

18. The chamber summons was prosecuted  orally with Mr  Karugu  advocate  for the applicant submitting  that the applicant  has a prima facie  case because  the decision  to charge   the applicant   was irrational, irregular, and  that unless  the court  intervenes  in the matter  then the  prosecutorial  powers  will be  abused.

19. Further, that the exparte applicant has been framed up.  That the  hearing  of the criminal case is fixed for  17th November  2016   and that it should be  stopped  until the court determines  whether the decision  by the respondent    to charge the applicant  was logical or rational.  He relied on the list of authorities filed on 3rd October 2016 thus -Kenafric Industries Ltd  & Another V Anti – Counterfeit  Agency  & 3 others [2015]  e KLR where the court held  that  leave to apply for  judicial review  and stay to issue  would issue  when  the decision   has not been implemented  or where  the same  is in the course of implementation and secondly, as  highlighted  in the rationale column, that where the imminent  outcome  of the decision  challenged  is likely  to render  the success  of the  Judicial Review proceedings   nugatory  or an  academic   exercise then the court is entitled  to stay  the said  proceedings,  the strength  or otherwise  of the applicant’s   case  notwithstanding.

20. Reliance was also placed on theRepublic V Director of Public Prosecutions  & Another Exparte Patrick  Onyango Ogolla [2016] where  the court  held that  Order  53 Rule  1 (4)  of the Civil  Procedure Rules confers wide  powers  on the  court to grant  stay on such  terms  that are  just  including the period for which the stay  is to last.

21. In addition, the applicant cited Wilfred  Josiah Manda & Another  vs  Patrick  Mukua  Muthani &  2 Others [2016] e KLR  where it was held that the Director  of Public Prosecutions  discretion can be interfered  with where the  court finds that the discretion is being abused  or is being used  to  achieve some collateral  purposes which  are not  geared  towards the vindication  of the commission of a criminal offence.

22. Further reliance was placed on the case of  Car  Importers  Association of Kenya Vs  Kenya  Bureau of Standards  & 5 Others  [2014] e KLR  where  the court  held that  the court  having  granted  leave, the question  of leave  operating  as stay must  start from  the point that leave  has already  been granted  and  therefore the determination on the question should  rest on the  further tests whether  damages  are adequate   remedy  and  where the balance  of convenience   lies.

23. The applicant further relied on Republic V Chuka University Exparte Kennedy  Omondi Waringa  & 35 Others [2016]  e KLR  where the  court held that  courts are the  ultimate  custodians  of the rights and   liberties of people, whatever the status and there is no rule of law that courts will abdicate jurisdiction merely because the proceedings or inquiry are of an internal disciplinary character.

24. The applicants counsel also relied on the grounds, statutory  statement  and  verifying affidavit   in his  submissions, urging  the court to  grant leave   to apply for  Judicial Review  orders  and that such leave  once granted  to  operate  as stay of  any proceedings  in the pending   criminal case  against the applicant  herein.

25. In opposing the application  for leave  and stay of  proceedings  pending before the criminal court against the  exparte  applicant, Mr Okello  counsel for the respondents   submitted that  there is no affidavit   filed  in support  of the chamber  summons and  that there  was only  a verifying  affidavit.

26. Further, that should this court be  inclined  to grant   leave to  the applicant to institute  Judicial Review  proceedings, the  court should not   grant any  stay of  proceedings   pending   in the criminal court. In Mr Okello’s  view, the grounds  upon  which the  leave  to apply is  predicated  do not  demonstrate  a prima   facie  case.

27. Further, that the exparte applicant is trying, by these proceedings, to put up a defence   before this court that he was framed.  That circumstances under which the applicant was arrested and charged cannot be subject of Judicial Review.

28. Further, that   Judicial Review is not concerned with merits of the case but with the decision making process.  Mr Okello submitted that the exparte applicant herein has not demonstrated as to what was wrong with the process that led to his being charged and therefore the pending prosecution.

29. Counsel  for the respondents relied  on the case  of Penina  Nandako Kiliswa  V IEBC  Petition No. 28/2014  where the court  set out  principles for granting  of Judicial  Review, citing with approval Pastoli  V Kabale   District   Local Government  Council  & Others [2008] 2 EA  300-301.

30. According to the respondent’s counsel, there  is no illegality, or error  of law  demonstrated  and that it was not demonstrated as to how  the Director of  Public Prosecution’s  decision to  charge the applicant with  a criminal  offence  is unreasonable.

31. It  was  further  submitted by the  respondent’s  counsel that  the applicant in this application is merely expressing his disagreement  with the  prosecution  by saying  that these  are management  issues  and manipulation, by giving   his defence  evidence   as to his role  in the  whole process.

32. Mr Okello submitted that our legal system provides all the necessary safeguards to ensure fair trial for the applicant.  Reliance   was placed on Petition No. 46 of Pauline Adhiambo Ragetv Director of Public Prosecutions & 5 others [2016] eKLR where Honourable Onguto J emphasized at page 7 of the judgment    that the Director of Public Prosecution and the Inspector General of Police are independent offices. Further that the respondents are enjoined   to investigate any allegations against the applicant.

33. In Mr Okello’s  view, therefore, this case is  a non starter from the onset  and  that the  request  for leave  and  stay  is a  ploy to delay the  trial.  Counsel urged the court to reject the application.

34. In a brief  rejoinder, Mr Karugu  submitted  on  behalf  of the exparte  applicant that there  were several  misrepresentations by Mr Okello and that one such misapprehension is that  there  was no verifying  affidavit  yet the  chamber summons is supported  by a verifying affidavit sworn by the exparte  applicant.  Further, that the respondents are administrative bodies subject to Judicial Review.  Mr Karuga submitted that the question in this matter is whether   the decision to charge the applicant   was unreasonable.  He referred  the court  to paragraphs  5 of the verifying  affidavit  sworn by the  exparte   applicant  which shows  that the exparte  applicant   was charged with things were found in the  custody of the National  Olympics  Committee  of Kenya  and not the  applicant herein.  He  maintained that his client   has  a prima facie  case to warrant  leave and  that leave once granted  should operate   as stay of criminal  proceedings  facing the applicant as  per the  annexed  copy of charge sheet  in criminal  case No. 1373 of  2016.

Determination

35. I have  carefully  considered the exparte  applicant’s  chamber summons  seeking for leave  of this court  to apply for  Judicial Review   orders of certiorari  and   prohibition; to  quash  the decision  of respondents  to charge the applicant with stealing  the items listed  in the charge  sheet; and to  prohibit  the prosecution which is ongoing at the Chief Magistrate’s Court, Nairobi  vide criminal case No.  1373  of  2016; and that the  leave  so granted do  operate  as stay of the criminal  proceedings  before the Chief  Magistrate’s  court.

36. In my humble  view, the issues  for determination  are whether  the  exparte  applicant  is  entitled  to the orders  of leave; and   stay.

37. On the first issue of whether leave sought is warranted, the  principles  that  guide the grant  of an order  for leave to institute Judicial Review   proceedings  were explained  by a three judge bench  decision  comprising Bosire, Mbogholi-Msagha & Oguk, JJ in Matiba  Vs Attorney General  Nairobi  HC Miscellaneous  Application No.  790 of  1993  wherein the  court held  that it is supposed  to exclude  frivolous  or vexatious  applications  which, prima  facie  appear to be abuse of the court  process  or those   applications which are  statute  barred.

38. Nyamu J in  Republic  Vs  Land Disputes  Tribunal  Court Central Division  and Another  Exparte Nzioka  [2006] 1EA 321  held that   leave should  be granted, if  on the material  available, the court considers, without  going  into the matter  in depth , that there  is an arguable  case for  granting   leave and that  leave  stage is a filter whose  purpose  is to  weed out  hopeless cases  at the earliest   possible  time, thus saving  he pressure  on the courts  and  needless  expense  for the applicant  by allowing  malicious  and futile  claims to  be weeded out or eliminated so as  to prevent  public  bodies  being  paralyzed  for months  because of pending   court  action  which might  turn out  to be unmeritorious.

39. In  Exparte  Worth [1985] STC 564  cited  in Regina  V Criminal  Injuries  Compensation Board  Exparte A (AP) by  theHouse  of Lords  HL 1998-1999 it  was held:

“…….The judge’s  task on the exparte  application  was to  do no more  than to  decide  that there  was an  arguable  case for  Judicial Review  and not to “determine  any  issue  finally in favour of the applicant.”

40. In the same case, the House of Lords stated:

“On an exparte application, leave to apply for Judicial Review can be refused, deferred to the substantive hearing or given.”

41. In the instant  case, the court  at the first  instance  certified  the matter  as urgent  but deferred  the hearing  of the application  for  leave  and  the prayer for stay  at the interpartes  hearing.

42. In Re- International SA Bureau Ventas [2005] EA 43, the court stated:

“ Application for leave  to apply for  orders of Judicial Review  are normally exparte  and such  an application  does  restrict  the court  to threshold  issues  namely, whether   the applicant  has an  arguable  case and   whether if  leave is granted, the same  should  operate  as stay.  Whereas  Judicial  Review remedies  are at  the end of the day  discretionary, that discretion  is a Judicial  discretion and , for this  reason a court  has to explain  how the discretion, if any, was  exercised  so that all the parties  are aware  of  the factors  which  led  to the  exercise  of  the court’s  discretion.  There  should be an arguable  case which , without  delving  into the details  could  succeed  and  an arguable  case is not  ascertained  by  the court   tossing a coin   or waving a  magic wand   or raising   a green flag, theascertainment  of an arguable case  is an  intellectual  exercise  in this fast   growing  area of  the  law and   one has  to consider without  making any  findings,the scope  of the Judicial Review  remedy sought, the  grounds  and the possible   principles  of  administrative  law involved and not  forget  the ever expanding  frontiers of judicial review  and   perhaps  given a applicant  his day   in court  instead of  denying  him.  Although leave should not be granted as a matter of routine, where one is in doubt one has to consider the wise words of Megany J.  In the case of John V Rees [1970] ch 345 at 402.  In the exercise  of  the discretion  on whether  or not  to grant  stay, the  court takes  into account  the needs  of good administration.”

43. The above  position  was also stated  in Republic Vs  County Council of Kwale  & Another Exparte  Kondo  & 57  Others Mombasa HC Miscellaneous Application No. 384/1966, as cited  by Honourable Odunga J  extensively in  Re of John Wachira Wambugu vs The Disciplinary Tribunal of  the Law  Society of Kenya  [2015] e KLR.

44. Again in Meixner  & Another V  Attorney General [2005] e KLR  189 cited in John  Wachira  Wambugu  (supra) case, it was held that the leave  of the court is a pre requisite  to making  a substantive  application for  Judicial Review   and that the purpose of the leave is to  filter  out  frivolous  applications  hence  the granting  of leave of  otherwise  involves  an exercise  of  judicial discretion.

45. In Mirugi Kariuki Vs Attorney General CA 70/1991 [1992] KLR 8 the court stated:

“ if  the applicant   fails to  show, when  he applies for leave, a  prima facie case,  on reasonable  grounds  for believing  that there has  been a failure  of public duty the court would  be in error  if it  granted  leave.  The curb is  represented  by the need  for the applicant  to show, when he seeks  leave to  apply, that he has  a case, is  an essential  protection  against abuse  of the legal  process.  It enables the court to prevent abuse by busy bodies, cranks and other mischief-makers…”

46. The thread  that is common  and which  runs through  all the above  authoritative decisions that have stood the test of times  is that the grant of leave  to institute  Judicial Review  proceedings is not  a mere  formality  and that the court shall  not grant  leave as a matter  of course.  The  applicant who seeks  leave of court  is obliged  to demonstrate  to the satisfaction  of the court  that he has a  prima facie  case that is  arguable  for the grant   of leave.

47. However, the applicant at this stage is not expected to delve into the depth of the application.  He must, nonetheless demonstrate that he has not come to court after an inordinate delay and that the application is not frivolous, malicious or futile.

48. In the decision of  Kenafric  Industries  Ltd  & Another  Anti  Counterfeit  Agency & 3 Others (supra)  which decision   was   relied oin by the exparte  applicant, Honorable Odunga  J citing  several other  decisions held inter alia:

“……it must  always  be remembered  that the motive  of institution of the  criminal proceedings  is only relevant   where the  predominant   purpose is to further  some other  ulterior  purpose and  as long  as the prosecution and those charges   with the  responsibility  of making the decisions to charge  act in a reasonable  manner, the High  court would be  reluctant  to intervene.”

49. Concerning  the duty to investigate  crimes, the case  of Republic  vs  Commissioner of Police  and Another  exparte   Michael Monari  & Another [2012] e KLRcited inKenafric  Industries(supra) case is instructive  that:

“The police have a duty to investigate on any complaint   once a complaint is made.  Indeed, the police would be failing in their constitutional mandate to detect   and prevent   crime.  The police only need to establish reasonable   suspicion before preferring charges.  The rest is left to the trial court.  The predominant reason for the institution of criminal case cannot therefore be said to have been the vindication of the criminal justice.  As long  as the prosecution and those   charged with  the responsibility  of making the  decisions  to charge  act in  a reasonable  manner, the High court  would be   reluctant  to intervene.”

50. In the instant case, therefore  in order  for the applicant   to succeed  in the application for leave,  he must  show that  the investigations  leading  to the  charges facing  him and  as being prosecuted  by  the Director of Public Prosecutions,  were laced  with ulterior  motives; that the  predominant  purpose  of conducting  the prosecution against  him is to achieve  some collateral   result; not  connected  with vindication of an  alleged commission  of a criminal  offence, that there   has been  failure on the part of the respondents  to perform  a public duty; that  the decision to charge  the applicant is  irrational, illogical and  irregular  and  amounts to abuse of process.

51. The applicant   claims that  on his  arrival  from Rio de Jeneiro Olympics in Brazil, he  was unceremoniously  arrested  and charged with  the  offence of stealing items  which are  incapable  of being  stolen; that he is being framed  and that  the  charges   are a cover up  of mismanagement  at the Athletics  Kenya where he   is an official hence  the decision  to charge him should be quashed  and the prosecution  prohibited.

52. The impugned charges   are already before the Chief Magistrates Court at Nairobi.  The Chief Magistrates Court is not enjoined to these proceedings.

53. The power to prosecute is statutory power vested in the Director of Public Prosecution by  the Office of Director of Public Prosecution Act and Article 156 of the Constitution.

54. This court cannot prohibit the Director of Public Prosecutions from performing his statutory and constitutional mandate unless it is   demonstrably clear at this   stage that the Director of Public Prosecutions is abusing   his powers to warrant a check on that power through Judicial Review.  No such   prima facie evidence of abuse of power is shown.

55. On the other hand, even if this court   were to grant the leave to apply for Judicial Review orders of certiorari, what will be challenged is the decision to charge the applicant with the offence of stealing.  The decision to charge him   was already been made   and   he is facing the impugned charges.

56. There is no prayer seeking for the leave to apply for the quashing of the criminal proceedings pending before   the Chief Magistrate’s Court from continuing with the trial of the applicant.

57. What  is sought as  against  the proceedings  in Milimani  CM Criminal  1373/2016 is stay  of the  proceedings, which,  in itself  is not  a Judicial Review  remedy but a  consequential  order.  I say so because in the two Judicial Review prayers reproduced in this ruling, Milimani CM criminal case No. 1373/2016 is not mentioned.  On that ground alone, this court would proceed to dismiss the application for leave in limine.

58. But there is more.  The  applicant  claims that  he  was  framed  and that  the case  against  him is  a cover up  of mismanagement  at Athletics  Kenya  and  further  that the  goods allegedly stolen were incapable of being stolen  because they were in safe  custody of National  Olympics   Committee.

59. Without  delving into  the depths of that kind  of deposition  and averment, what the applicant  has disclosed  is in  the nature  of a defence  evidence  that would best  be adduced at the criminal trial since  it  has not been  demonstrated to the satisfaction  of this court  that the trial  is prima facie  a sham or  that it  lacks any  factual  foundation  or that it is intended   to achieve  some collateral purpose than to vindicate the public for the alleged criminal acts.

60. In addition, the applicant  was   charged in court  in September  2016, the  same month that he  approached   this court to  intervene  in the matter.  Nonetheless, he  has not attempted to annex  to his  statutory  statement   any  witness   statements  of proposed   prosecution  witnesses for the  court’s  perusal   to show that  the criminal  trial  has no factual  foundation  or that on  the face of it, there is malafides,  and  neither  has he demonstrated  to the satisfaction  of this court  that since  the inception  of the criminal  charges, the  applicant  has discovered  any new  and  important  matter that  he is pretty  sure will  vitiate the trial.

61. On the relevance of the case of   Patrick Onyango  Ogola  (supra)  as relied  on by the applicant, this court notes that there   was no issue   raised   on the grant    of leave to apply as the court in that case  had granted  orders exparte  as sought  and  proceeded  to hear and  determine issues  relating to stay of  proceedings in the trial court pending hearing and   determination of the substantive   motion.

62. It  should be  noted that  where the court  finds that  no prima facie arguable  case  is made out  then  the  court would   not be inclined to grant any stay, although the court would  nonetheless  grant leave and deny stay orders depending on the circumstances of each case  and  where there   is demonstration that if stay is denied  and yet leave is  granted  then the  substantive  motion, if successful, would be  rendered  nugatory  and a mere   academic  exercise  and  therefore rendering the applicant a pious  explorer in the corridors of  justice, then stay would issue.

63. In Wilfred Josiah Manda & Another  vs Patrick  Mukua  Muthomi & 2 Others(supra) relied on by  the exparte applicant, regrettably the decision  favours  the respondent’s  position. In that  case Honourable  P. Nyamweya J  in Machakos  JR  Miscellaneous Application  218/2015  dismissed an application  for leave to apply  for Judicial Review  orders  and the  prayer that  leave do operate  as stay.

64. It therefore  follows that the applicant’s  authorities  relied on  focused  only on stay  of criminal/proceedings  pending before  the  trial  magistrate  yet he  did not  even seek  for leave  to apply  to bring  into this  court and   quash or prohibit  those  proceedings.  Neither did he enjoin the court that is involved in trying him. Stay being a consequential order depends on the merits of the prayer for leave.

65. In the Wilfred  Josiah  Manda(supra)Honourable  Nyamweya  J further citingRepublic  vs Attorney  General  &  4  Others  exparte  Kenneth  Kariuki Githii [2014]  e KLR( Odunga J) stated:

“ The  court ought  not to usurp  the constitutional  mandate  of the  Director of Public Prosecution  to investigate    and undertake  prosecution  in the exercise   of the discretion  conferred upon  that office.  The mere  fact that the intended  or ongoing  criminal  proceedings are  in all  likelihood  bound to fail,  it has been  held time  and again,  is not  a ground for  halting those  proceedings  by way  of Judicial  Review  since Judicial Review   proceedings  are not  conceived  with the merits  but  with the decision  making process.  That  an applicant  has a  good defence  in the criminal  process    is a good  ground  that ought  not to be  relied upon by a court  on order to halt criminal undertaken bona fide  since the defence   is open to the  applicant in those  proceedings.  However if the applicant  demonstrates  that the criminal  proceedings  that the  police intend to carry out  constitute  an abuse of process, the  court will  not hesitate  in putting  a  halt  to such proceedings.  The fact  however  that facts  constituting the basis of  a criminal proceeding  way  similarly  be a  basis for   a similar  civil suit, is no  ground for  staying  the criminal  process if the same  can  similarly be a basis s for a criminal  offence.  Therefore  the concurrent  existence of the criminal proceedings  and civil proceedings would not, Ipso facto,  constitute  an abuse of the  process  of the court  unless  the commencement  of the criminal proceedings   is meant  to force  the applicant   to submit  to the civil claim     in which  case  the institution  of the criminal  process  would  have been  for the  achievement   of a collateral  purpose  other than its legally  recognized  claim.”

66. In the instant  case, other than  rhetoric   mentioning   of the  words  illegality, irrationality and unreasonableness, and the use of extremely strong terminologies against the respondents by the applicant, there is   absolutely  no material  availed to the court to demonstrate  that prima facie, the decision to  charge the applicant  with stealing   was illegal  and or that such decision was arrived at  in an irrational  and  or unreasonable  manner  such that a prudent  person would not  have arrived  at   the impugned  decision  given the  same facts.

67. There is even no demonstration, that prima facie, that the respondent’s decisions to charge the applicant   were arrived at in breach of the rules of natural justice   or that objectively, there is unfairness in those decisions or that it was oppressive or vexatious.

68. Again   the decision  in Car Importers  Association of Kenya   vs Kenya Bureau of Standards & Others (supra) relied on by the applicant’s counsel never  concerned the  question of  leave to  apply  since leave   had already  been granted and so  the ruling  by E. Mureithi J  concerned  whether  the leave granted  to apply should  operate as stay of the decision  challenged  in the   Judicial Review proceedings.

69. Finally  in the Republic  v Chuka  University exparte  Kennedy  Omondi Waringa  & 35  Others (supra)  the application   was for leave  to commence  Judicial Review  proceedings.  In that  matter, Honourable  Odunga J after  brilliantly  and  elaborately  analyzing  the chamber  summons before him, the learned  judge  proceeded to strike  out the  chamber summons  for leave  on several  grounds among them, failure of the  exparte  applicants  to resort to the  available   remedies   provided for   under  the respondent’s  disciplinary  procedure.

70. The above  decision therefore  also does not come to the  aid of the  exparte  applicant   herein who  relied on it and  selectively  quoted  some part  thereof  that appeared  to favour  the exparte  applicant’s  case. Quite  unfortunately for the applicant,   this court  does not  focus on cut and pasted  points but on the decisions  cited and the raison detre thereof.

71. On the other hand, the respondent’s decision in Pauline Adhiambo Raget (supra) was a judgment by Honourable   Onguto J on the merits of challenging a criminal trial before the constitutional court. That  decision did not  concern an application  for leave.  For, in  constitutional petitions  no leave  is required. Moreso, when deciding  a Constitutional  Petition, the court fully determines  the merits  of the decision  maker  and not the  process  unlike in Judicial Review  proceedings.

72. Similarly, the Supreme Court decision in Petition No.28/2014  the matter   related to an appeal that sought  to revoke and annul elections and the matters  adjudicated  upon therein  related  to the merits  of the substitutive Judicial Review  application  and not an application  for  leave  as is the  case  herein.

73. On the whole, I find  that the exparte   applicant   has failed to demonstrate before this  court that  he has a  prima facie  arguable  case for  leave to  be granted  to him  to challenge   the decisions  to charge  him with the  criminal offences preferred  against him  in criminal case No. 1373/2016.

74. Accordingly, the application   for leave is dismissed.

75. And with  the prayer for leave  falling by  the wayside, there  is no  pedestal  upon which  the prayer  for stay of proceedings in the criminal  trial can  anchor.  Consequently, that  prayer for  stay does not  lie and  therefore  I need not  delve into  the principles  applicable  in applications  or prayer  for leave to  operate as stay of the impugned  decisions  or criminal proceedings  as the case  may be.

76. The chamber summons dated 28th September 2016 fails.  The same is dismissed with no orders as to costs.

Dated, signed and delivered at Nairobi this 17th day of November 2016.

R.E. ABURILI

JUDGE

In the presence of :

Mr Karugu for the applicant

Mr Ndege h/b for Mr Okello for the Respondents

CA: Adline