Daniel Wamugunda & Kevin Mwangi v Limo Kipchirchir, Assistant County Commissioner Baricho Ward/ Division & 6 others [2020] KEHC 9775 (KLR)

REPUBLIC OF KENYA

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT KERUGOYA CRIMINAL DIVISION

MISC. CRIMINAL  APP. NO.  23   OF  2018

IN  THE  MATTER  OF  AN  APPLICATION  UNDER  ARTICLE  165 (3), 2, 10, 10,

20 (1),  ( 2)  (3) (4), ( 21  AND 22   OF  THE   CONSTITUTION  OF  KENYA  ( 2010)

AND

IN  THE  MATTER  OF  THE  PROTECTION  OF  THE  CONSTITUTION  RIGHTS

ENSHRINEDIN CHAPTER  FOUR  OF  THE  CONSTITUTION  IN  SO FAR

AS  THEPETIITONER’SCONSTITUTIONAL   RIGHTS  UNGER

ARTICLES  27, 28,29, 31,40  & 47  HAVE   BEEN  VIOLATED

AND

IN  THE   MATTER  OF PROTECTION  TO  PROPERTY UNDER

ARTICLE  40  OFTHE  CONSTITUTION  OF  KENYA  ( 2010)  AND

IN  THE  MATTER  OF  NATIONAL   GOVERNMENT  CO- ORDINATION  ACT

( ACT  No. 1  of  2013),PUBLIC  OFFICERS  ETHICS  ACT(CHAPTER  182

LAWS  OF  KENYA,NATIONAL POLICE  SERVICE  ACT( ACT  NO. 11A  OF  2011)

AND

IN  THE  MATTER  OF  SECTIONS  118, 118A, 119, 120  AND  121  OF  THE

CRIMINAL  PROCEDURE  ACT ( CHAPTER  75  LAWS OF  KENYA)

IN  THE  MATTER  OF  AN APPLICATION

BETWEEN

DANIEL  WAMUGUNDA.............................................................1ST  APPLICANT

KEVIN  MWANGI........................................................................2ND  APPLICANT

VERSUS

1. LIMO  KIPCHIRCHIR

2. THE  ASSISTANT COUNTY COMMISSIONER

BARICHOWARD/ DIVISION & 6  OTHERS.............................RESPONDENTS

RULING:

1. The application pending before court is dated 25/09/2018 seeking the following orders, that the honourable court  do  issue:

a. Summons to the 1st to  6th  respondents  to give  proper  inventory   of  confiscated  twelve   slot  machines   belonging  to  the  applicants   and  any  planned  destruction  be stayed.

b. Order   directed   to the 1st  to 6th  respondents   to  immediately  release  Betting  and  Gaming  machines  belonging   the  applicants.

c. Order  directed  to the  1st  to  6th  respondents  to  immediately  release  twelve  slot  machines   belonging  to  the  applicants  as  the  said  confiscation  is  illegal  and  unlawful.

2. On 27/03/ 2019, this file was consolidated with Misc. Criminal Application Nos  14  and  15  of  2018.

Applicant’s case.

On  diverse  dates  between  19/08/2018  and  19/09/2018   the 1st  to 6th   respondents  illegally  raided  their   premises   in  Miringa -ini,  Baricho,  Kagio  and  Kario  shopping  Centre and  confiscated  their  twelve   slot  machines.  The  machines  are  held  up  in  Kerugoya  Police  Station   and other  government  installation  offices  which  are  non –gazetted   premises  where  confiscated   property  should be  held   pending  production  in court.

3. No criminal charges  have been  preferred  against  the  applicants  in relation  to any  of  the  confiscated   property  to  warrant  detention  as exhibits.  There is  imminent   danger  of  destruction of  the  machines  with  an  aim of  concealing   evidence  of  1st  to 6th   respondents  unconstitutional  and  unlawful  activities.

4. The   1st  to  6th  respondents’  actions amount  to gross   violation  of  constitution,  gross  misconduct  and  contrary  to  Section  4  of  the  National  Government  Co-ordination  Act  ( No. 1  of   2013),  Sections  25,  118  and  121  of  the  Criminal  Procedure  Act   Cap.  75  Sections  3, 49,  55,  60,  92    and  Fifth  Schedule  of  National  Police   Service   Act  (  Act. No. 11A  of  2011)  and  upfront  of  values  and  principles  of  public  service.

1st  -5th  and   7th  Respondents’ case

They  filed  ground  of  opposition  stating  that the  application  is  defective  and  incurably    defective   for  reasons  that;

i. There is  no  authority  to  institute  suit  issued  to  the  1st  applicant  by  the  2nd  Applicant.

ii. Failing  to  issue  requisite   notice  of  intention  to  sue  the  respondents  as  provided  under  the  Government  Proceedings  Act  Cap  40  Laws  of  Kenya.

5. In addition,  they  have  not  met   the   set  criteria  for grant  of  the  orders,  which  are  inter  alia,

i. Not established   prima facie  case

ii. Not demonstrated  nature   of  public  interest

iii. Not  disclosed  existence   of  other  cases  touching  on  same  subject  matter,  that   is;

Nairobi  HC  Petition   No.  447  of  2016

Kerugoya  HC Misc.  Constitutional  Application  No. 22  of  2018

Kerugoya  HC Misc.  Constitutional   Application  No. 16  of  2018

Kerugoya  HC  Misc.  Constitutional  Application    No. 4  of  2018

Nairobi  HC  Petition  No. 227  of  2018

iv.  Not  demonstrated  they own  any  gaming  and/or  gambling  machines.

v.  Have  not  discharged  the   evidential  burden   to  prove  that  the    respondents Confiscated   any  of  the  gaming  slot  machines.

6. That the roles  of  the  respondents  touching  on  alleged   confiscation  of  any  gaming   machines  are  pending   hearing  and  determination  in  above  cases  which   offends  doctrine   of  sub –judice.  To  the   extent   that the  applicant  seeks  rendering  of  proper  inventory  is  couched   as  contempt  of  court.  The  application  suffers   from  glaring   inconsistencies  as  to  who  confiscated  the  alleged  gaming  machines  and  how  machines  were   confiscated.  They  have  not  demonstrated  they  are  lawfully   engaged  in  registered  and  licensed  betting  and  gaming   business   under  Betting,  Lotteries  and  Gamming  Act,  Cap  131.

6th Respondent’s case

They also filed grounds of opposition on ground  that  the  matter  is  res  judicata  whereby  the  2nd  applicant   has  filed  similar  matter.  No evidence to demonstrate who and when  the  alleged  machines  were  confiscated.  Failed to demonstrate  how  their  rights   were  violated.  The application is fatally defective for non-disclosure of identity  of the  people  who  allegedly   confiscated  their  slot  machines.

7. In reply to the grounds  of  opposition,  the  applicants  filed  a  Supplementary   affidavit  sworn  by  Daniel   Wamugunda  on  26/ 3/2019.

8. He  depones  that  he  has   authority  to  swear  the  supplementary  affidavit,  where  he  depones  that   he  has  consent and  authority  of  the  2nd applicant to  swear  this  affidavit  and  in response  to  the  grounds  of  opposition  by  the   6th  respondent  who  avers   that  no credible  evidence  with  any  probative  value   to  buttress   or   support  his   allegations   of  the  said  petition   No.  447 of 2016 and Petition227 of 2018 filed in Nairobi and the matters filed in this court to show how  similar  they  are  with  the   present  application.

9. That  the  6th  respondent  has  relied   without  any  prove   that  he  has  attached  photographic  evidence marked    DWG 1 and 2 in his  application   proving  the    said   confiscation,   that  is  h contention  that  grounds  of  opposition  addresses  only  issues  of  law  and  no  more  and  failure to  file  a  replying affidavit   by  each  of  the  respondents  in  reply  or  in  contention  admits  to  the   admission  of   the   facts  admitted  in  the  application.

10. He contends that  it  is  only  fair  and  just  for  the   respondents  or  their  subordinate  officers  or  any  other  officers  acting  under  them  to  immediately  or  forthwith   release  their  slot  machines  as  the  said  confiscation  is  illegal  and  unlawful.

11. He further depones that the ground of opposition by the 6th respondent is an abuse of court process meant to cause unnecessary anxiety and expense, hence wastage of this honorable courts time and resource and   it  should  be  dismissed  with  costs.

12. The parties agreed to proceed by way of written submissions.   The applicants   submits that the action by the 1st and 2nd respondents amounts  to gross  violation of  the  Constitution,  gross  misconduct, misbehavior   incompetence  and  contrary  to the guiding  principles  stipulated  in Section  4  of  the  National Government  Co-ordination  Act (Act. No. 1 of 2013) Sections 25, 118 and 121 of The Criminal Procedure code (Cap 75) of   The laws of Kenya Section 3, 49, 45, 60, 92 and the 5th Schedule of National Police Service Act No. (11A of 2011) and   afloat   to the values and principles of the public service as expounded in the Constitution and   Public Officer’s Ethics Act.

That the applicants have suffered economic loss, irreparable loss, damage and prejudice.  That the court has jurisdiction.

13. The 6th respondent submits that the applicant’s application is misconceived, vexatious and lacks any legal basis or facts.

14. He submits that function by the respondent was unconstitutional, illegal, unlawful, unjustified and forcible confiscation of the applicants betting, gaming and machines.  That they were required to prove or demonstrate that they were required to carry the gaming activities and that the alleged premises   where the gaming machines   were confiscated  were licensed  and  that  the  application  is  res-judicata.

That the applicants had filed similar applications which are pending before courts.

15. That the  applicants  are  allowed  to  litigate  in  every  court,  there  is  a  possibility  that  various courts  will arrive at  different  findings  with  similar   issues, this  will not  only  embarrass  the respondent  but  also  the  court.  He urges the court to dismiss the application.

16. The 1st, 2nd 3rd 4th   5th and   7th respondents  did  not  file  any  submissions.

17. I have considered  the  application,  the  submissions   and  the grounds  of  opposition.  I  find  that  the   grounds  of  opposition  filed  by  the  1st  to  5th   and  7th  respondents  have  raised  preliminary  issues  which  need  to be  determined  as  they  have  challenged   the  competency  of  the  application  before  this  court.

18. I  will  1st  deal  with  the  issues  before  I go  to the  merits   of  the a application.

The respondents  have  raised  the  following  issues;

1. Authority  to  institute  suit.

There are two applicants’ Daniel Wamugunda and  Kevin  Mwangi.  The  1st  applicant  swore  an  affidavit  in support  of  the  Notice  of  Motion   and  states  that   he  has  the  consent  and  authority   of  the  2nd  applicant  herein  to  swear this  affidavit.

19. He has however not annexed any authority   from  the  2nd  applicant     Kevin  Mwangi.

Order  4 Rule  1 (1)  (3) of  the  Civil  Procedure  Rules   provides  that;

“  where  there are  several  plaintiffs’  one  of  them,  with  written  authority  filed  with  the  verifying  affidavit,  may  swear  the verifying  affidavit    on behalf   of  the  others”.

20. The  rule  requires  that  the    applicant  files  together  with  the  pleadings   authority  to swear  verifying  affidavits  on  behalf of  the  others.    Any  pleading   filed  on  behalf  of  another  party  without  prove  that   he  has  authority  to  swear   on  behalf  of  the  other  parties,  is  incompetent.  See   In case  of;   Sheikh  Mohamed  Nunow   -versus-  Ali  Ibrahim   Hassan   ( 2019)  eKLR.

The  court  held;

See also the case of:   Kenya  Agricultural   Research   Institute  (K.A.R.1. )  -vs-   Farah  Ali,  Chairman  Ishahakia   Self  Help   Group  &  Another  ( 2011)eKLR   Wendo  J  (as  she  then  was  )  held   thus;

“  In   my  view,  the  appellant  has  to demonstrate  that  this  suit   is properly  filed  and  not  just  brought  by a  busy  body  or  an  officer  who has  no  authority.  Such  authority  should be  exhibited. ….

Failure  to annex  a  list  of  names  of  officials   and  their  signatures  duly  filed  with the  verifying  affidavit  is a  serious  mistake  that  goes  into the  very  substance  of  this  suit.  Such a  mistake  in  my  view is  not  of a  technical  nature  that can be  cured  by  the  provisions  of  Article  159  of  the  Constitution of  Kenya  2010.  A suit  that  is  filed  without authority  becomes  incompetent  and  ought  to be  struck  out….”

21. Further  in  the  case  of;   Linnet  Wairimu   Mukuha  &  Another  -versus – County  Government  of  Nakuru  &  3  others   (2019)  ekLR

Where the court  held;

There is  sound  wisdom  in  the requirement  that a  plaintiff  signifies  her intention  to  sue  by signing  the  verifying  affidavit  or  by  giving  a  written  authority  which  is  the  annexed   to  the  verifying  affidavit.  Litigation  can be  rewarding  but  it  is also a  perilous  affair.  There is always  the  risk  that  judgment  on the main  claim,  on  a  counterclaim  or  on costs  can  be  imposed  against  a  plaintiff.

This decisions  are  persuasive   and  properly  addresses  the  requirement  under  Order   4  Rule (1) ( 3)  of  the  Civil Procedure  Rules.    The applicant did not  file  any  written  authority  given  by  the  2nd applicant,  he  therefore  this   court  cannot  verify  or  confirm  whether  or  not  the  2nd applicant  is aware  and  has  consented  to  the  suit.

22. The  applicants’  suit and  claim  is  incompetent  for  want  of  authority  from   the  2nd  applicant  consenting   to  be a  party  in  the  proceedings,  and  giving  authority  to  the 1st applicant  to swear verifying affidavits  on  his  behalf.

2.  Notice of  Intention  to  sue  the   Government.

The respondents’ contends that the applicants’ application is not properly before  the  court  for  failure  to  comply  with  mandatory  provisions  of  the  Government  proceedings  Act  Cap  40 of  the  Laws  of  Kenya by  failing  to  issue  the  requisite  notice  of  intention to  sue  to  the  respondents.

Section  13A   of  The  Government  Proceeding  Act  Cap  40  provides:

i. “No proceedings   against  the  Government  shall  lie  or  be  instituted   until after  the  expiry  of  a  period  of   thirty  days   after  a  notice  in  writing  in  the  prescribed  form  have  been   served  on  the  Government  in relation  to  those  proceedings.”

ii. The  notice  to  be served  under  this  section  shall be  in  the  form  set  out  in  the  Third  Schedule  and  shall  include  the following  particulars –

a.  the full  names,  description  and  place  of  residence  of  the  proposed  plaintiff,

b. the date  upon  which  the cause  of  action  is  alleged  to  have  accrued;

c. the  name  of  the  Government  department  alleged  to be  responsible  and  the  full names  of  any  servant  or  agent  whom  it  is  intended  to  join  as a  defendant.

d. a  concise  statement  of  the  facts  on  which  it is alleged  that  the  liability  of  the  Government  and  of  any  such  servant  or  agent  has arisen;

e. the  relief  that  will be  claimed  and,  so  far  as  may  be  practicable,  the value  of  the  subject  matter  of  the  intended  proceedings  or  the  amount  which  it  is  intended  to claim”.

23. The issue  of  the  Notice  under  Section  13 A  ( Supra) was  addressed  by  the  Court  of  appeal  in  the  case  of;   David  Njenga  Ngugi –versus- Hon. Attorney  General  ( 2016) eklr

Where the  court  held;

“The  genesis  of  the  section  was  clearly  grounded  in policy  considerations  geared  at  ensuring  that  suits  are not  instituted   against  the  government without  notice.  The  Attorney  general   sues  and defends  suits on  behalf  of  the  State.  As  there are  many departments  of  government,  it  is in public  interest  that  the  Attorney General  knows  in  advance  of  claims  being  made   against  the  Government so as  to take  instructions  necessary   to facilitate  proper  legal  representation.   It would be virtually impossible for the   Government department, hence the need  for  the   requirement  that an  intending  claimant  must give  notice  pursuant  to  Section  13 A  (supra).  At the end of  the  day,  it  is  the  public   who  must  underwrite  the   successful  claims  through  their  taxes   where  monetary  relief  is given.  It is obvious  that the mischief  intended  to be eradicated  is  simply  prevention of  suits  against  the  State  where the  Attorney  General  has  not  had  notice  under  Section  13 A ( supra).  Nowhere does the Act expressly or by implication  state  that  a  suit  filed  where  the notice is  not in full  compliance  with  Section  13 A  is  incompetent…”

24. In  the  instance  case,  the  use  of  the  word “shall”  in section  13A (supra)  is  clearly  directory.  It  requires  that  no suit  shall be  instituted  where a  notice  has not been  given  in compliance  with  the section.  The  right  and  power  to sue  does not  spring  from compliance  with  the  section  and,  failure  to  fully comply  with  the section cannot  hamper  the right of a claimant  to sue.  As indicated above,  the  foundation  of  a tortious  action  against  Government  is  in common law.  It is  clear  that a suit  that  has been  filed without  full  compliance  with  Section  13A  cannot be  said  to be  incompetent  nor  can  it  be  rightly  struck out.

25. The applicants’ have not proved that they served the   Government with the   requisite notice  of   intention  to  sue.

26. The applicant bears the burden  to  prove  that  such  notice  was served,  in who  alleges  must  prove.

27. The respondents have said that no  notice  was served,  the  burden  of  prove  was  shifted  to  the applicant  to  prove  that indeed  the  notice  was served.  This burden was not discharged and therefore the suit  is  not  properly  before  this  court  due  to failure  by  the  applicants  to  comply  with  the  mandatory  provisions   of    Section  13 A ( supra).

3. Res-judicata/ Sub-judice.

The respondent  have stated  that  the  suit  is  res-judicata.   However,   in  their  grounds  of  objection    in  support  of  that  ground  they  have  stated  that  the  2nd applicant   have  filed  similar  matters  in H.C  Nairobi  and  Kerugoya  against  similar  parties and  raising  similar  issues.

The cases are listed in the grounds of opposition.     My view is that this   relates to sub-judice not re-judicata.   Section 6 of Civil Procedure ActProvides;

“No  court  shall  proceed  with  the  trial  of  any  suit  or  proceedings  in  which   the  matter  in issue  is  also  directly   and  substantially  in issue  in a  previously  instituted   suit  or  proceeding  between  the same parties  or between  parties under  whom  they  or  any  of  them claim,  litigating   under  the  same  title,  where  such   suit  or  proceeding  is  pending  in  the  same  or  other   court  having  jurisdiction  in  Kenya  to grant  the  relief  claimed.”

28. The word used under this Sectionis  ‘ shall’.   The section prohibits a party to  proceed   with  matters  in  one  court  when  the  matters   are  directly  in  issue  in  a  previously  instituted  suit  or  proceeding  between  same  parties  or  between   parties  under  whom   they   or  any  of  them  claim.

29. The applicant has stated that the respondents’ did not prove that the other suits, this was a mere denial as the respondents   demonstrated   that there are cases which  are pending   involving  similar  parties  and  which   have not been  determined.

30. This cases are listed in the ground of opposition filed by the 1st -5th and   7th respondent at paragraph 3.

31. I find that to the extent that the  present  application  touches  on  the  alleged  role  played  by   the respective  respondents  in  the alleged  confiscation  of any gaming  machines  if  at  all and  which  issues  are  pending  hearing and  determination  in the  above  cited  cases, such an  action  offends  the doctrine  of   sub-judice.

MERITS OF THE  APPLICATION

a. The applicants have not demonstrated that they have a prima-facie case.  They have not demonstrated by way of evidence, that they lawfully own the gaming or gambling machines the subject matter of the instant suit.

b. They have not demonstrated by way  of  empirical  evidence  that  they  are  lawfully  engaging  in  legally  registered  and  licensed  betting  or  gaming  business  under  the   Betting  lotteries  and  Gaming  act  Cap   31  of  the Laws  of  Kenya  subject  to  the  requisite  approvals  from  the  Kirinyaga  County  Government.

c. The issue as to whether the respondents confiscated the gaming machines is pending determination in various cases filed  in  different  courts  and   there  must be  prove  in  the  1st  place  that  the  properties  were  arbitrary  taken  away  by  the  state  and  this  can be demonstrated  by  proving   that  he/she   has   title  to  the  property  said  to  be arbitrary  taken  away.

d. Since the applicants are alleging that the   properties were confiscated they ought to have served a notice on  the  respondents   to  produce  and   listing  the  confiscated   items.

e. The respondents have raised the issue that the applicants have not demonstrated  by  way  of  empirical  evidence  that  they  are  lawfully  engaging  in  a  legally  registered  and   gaming,  betting   and  lottery business  under  the  Betting, lotteries and   Gaming Act  cap  131  Laws  of  Kenya.

f. Despite these matters having been raised by the respondents they have not  elicited  any  response  from  the  applicants.

g. I find that   the applicant has not demonstrated a prima facie case and has not demonstrated   the nature of  the  public  interest   that  will  be  served  by  allowing  the  application.

h. In conclusion  I  find  that  the  application   lacks  merits   as  the   suit  is  incompetent,  violates  mandatory  provisions  of  the   Government  Proceeding  Act  Cap   40  of   the  Laws  of  Kenya  and  is  grossly   sub-judice.

i. In the circumstances   I   order that  the  application  be   dismissed  with  costs.

Dated,  signed  at  Kerugoya  this 29th day  of  May 2020

L. W.  GITARI

JUDGE