Kenyatta University, Stephen Njoka Nyaga, Jasper Muriithi Karani & Andrew Mugambi v Wellington Kihato Wamburu, Director of Criminal Investigations, Inspector General, National Police Service & Attorney General [2017] KEHC 6088 (KLR)

REPUBLIC OF KENYA

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA

AT NAIROBI

JUDICIAL REVIEW NO. 61 OF 2016

IN THE MATTER OF AN APPLICATION FOR JUDICIAL REVIEW  PROCEEDINGS

AND

IN THE MATTER OF SECTION 8 AND 9 OF THE LAW REFORM ACT ( CAP 26    LAWS OF KENYA)

AND

IN THE MATTER  OF  AN APPLICATION FOR LEAVE   TO APPLY  FOR ORDERS   OF CERTIORARI  AND PROHIBITION

BETWEEN

KENYATTA  UNIVERSITY…………………...…………….......1ST APPLICANT

STEPHEN  NJOKA NYAGA…………….....………………..….2ND APPLICANT

JASPER  MURIITHI KARANI……….....………………………3RD APPLICANT

ANDREW  MUGAMBI……………….....……………………….4TH APPLICANT

VERSUS

WELLINGTON KIHATO WAMBURU…….…………..…...1ST RESPONDENT

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

THE INSPECTOR GENERAL,

NATIONAL POLICE SERVICE………….…..……..……. 3RD RESPONDENT

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL…………….…………..…..…4TH RESPONDENT

RULING ON LEAVE AND STAY

1. The applicants in this case are Kenyatta University, Stephen Njoka Nyaga, Jasper Muriithi Karani and Andrew Mugambi. They seek from this court by their chamber  summons dated 14th February 2017 and supported by statutory statement, verifying  affidavit  and annextures  the following  orders:-

1) Spent.

2) Leave to apply for Judicial Review  order  of certiorari removing  to the High Court  for purposes  of  quashing  the letter dated 9th January 2017 together with the  requisitions to compel the attendance  of  the  2nd, 3rd  and  4th  applicant  at  the  Director of  Criminal Investigation Headquarters, Serious  Crimes Unit on 15th February  2017;

3) An order  of certiorari  removing  to the High Court  for the purposes of quashing  in inquiry No. 120/2016  instituted by the 1st respondent  Wellington  Kihato Wamburu .

4) An order  of prohibition  directed  against the  respondents, prohibiting  them through their agents, from  proceeding  with inquiry No. 120/2016 or in any manner investigating allegations of perjury purported arising from Miscellaneous  Application No. 101/2016 Republic vs Kenyatta University  & Another  Exparte Wellington  Kihato  Wamburu.

5) That leave to apply do operate as a stay of the inquiry No. 120/2016 pending hearing and determination of this Judicial Review application.

6) Costs of the application.

2. The grounds  upon which the application  is predicated  and  as  stipulated in the statutory statement and depositions in the verifying  affidavit of  Aaron Tanui the legal officer of the  1st  applicant  Kenyatta University are, in essence, that the  exparte  applicants  lament  that the respondents  have commenced an inquiry  into an alleged  perjury  on the part  of the applicants which alleged perjury relates to judicial proceedings  which are already concluded  vide Judicial Review  case No. 101/2016.

3. That the particulars of the alleged perjury have not been supplied to the applicants despite the respondent being requested to do so. Further, that the person who swore the affidavit in the JR 101/2016 and who was the 1st applicant’s employee has never been summoned to be questioned regarding alleged perjury; and that none of the applicants herein who were respondents in the said Judicial Review proceedings swore any affidavit upon which perjury can be inferred.

4. It is also contended that in any event, the respondents herein had an opportunity to test the veracity of that affidavit by the deponent in JR 101/2016 and even issued a notice to cross examine the said deponent but did not do so hence lodging of a complaint against the applicants herein shows bad faith, improper motive and abuse of power on the part of the respondents.

5. The applicants  therefore  averred that  they have a prima facie  arguable  case  for consideration at the substantive  stage  and  urged  the court to  grant  them leave   to apply.

6. On the prayer  for stay, the applicants  maintained  that  if stay is not   granted, then these proceedings  shall be rendered  nugatory if successful.  They reminded the court that  the 2nd -4th  respondents  have not filed  any reply  to these  proceedings.

7. It was contended that on 13th February  2017 the applicant’s counsels  wrote to the  Director of Criminal Investigations  about the conduct in  the matter but  that no response was forthcoming.  The applicants relied on the cases of Sylvana Mpabwanayo  Ntaryamira V Allen Waiyaki Gichuhi & Another, JR  449/2015; Republic  v  Cabinet Secretary  for Transport  and  Infrastructure & 5 others  Exparte  Kenya County Bus Owners Association(Through Paul G.Muthumbi  Chairman) Samuel Njuguna Secretary, Joseph  Kimiri  Treasurer & 8 Others [2014] e KLRandJames Opiyo  Wandayi  Vs Kenya National Assembly & 2 Others [2016] e KLR; Mirugi Kariuki  Vs Attorney General CA  70/91.

8. In their submissions  made orally  on 7th March  2017  echoing  the grounds and depositions of Mr Tanui, only the  1st respondent  Wellington Kihato  who is the complainant  in the impugned  inquiry filed   his replying  affidavit   to the chamber summons   opposing the granting of leave  and  or stay of the inquiry  which depositions his advocate  adopted  in his oral submissions  on 7th March  2017.

9. According  to the 1st  respondent, he admits  lodging a complaint  with the Director of Criminal Investigations  in October  2016   following the filing of an affidavit in reply  by Professor Wangari Mwai Sworn on  10th May  2016  in Republic vs  Kenyatta University  & Another  exparte  Wellington  Kihato Wamburu, claiming that there  was  plagiarism of the  1st respondent’s  PhD Thesis.  He believes  that the subject  matter  and summons  are intended  to  establish  the veracity of emails exchanged between parties   and  shed more light  as the source, the author   and  veracity of matters  touching  on and  affecting  his PhD  thesis  at the 1st applicant’s  institution,  otherwise the application by the  applicants is premature, ill conceived  and  calculated  to defeat due process  and moreso, that the guilty are afraid   is true to this application and  that if leave  and  stay are granted, they would frustrate investigations since the investigators  are not  limited to  proceedings  in JR  101/2016.   He urged the court to dismiss the application.

DETERMINATION

10. I have  considered  the exparte applicant’s  chamber summons, the statutory  statement  and  verifying  affidavit together  with annextures.  I have also considered  the opposing  replying   affidavit by the 1st respondent and the parties’ advocate’s submissions   for the grant of the  application for leave and  grant  of  stay, and the authorities cited.

11. The question of whether or not to grant leave to institute  Judicial Review  proceedings pursuant  to Order  53  of the Civil  Procedure Rules  is an  exercise of judicial discretion and  which  discretion must be  exercised  judiciously  and based on sound established principles (See Sylvana Mpabwanayo  Ntanyamira vs  Allen  Waiyaki Gichuhi & Another (supra).

12. In granting leave, the court must be satisfied that the  application is not   frivolous, is not statute barred and therefore  that it  is  not an abuse of the  court process. The court  at the leave stage, is however, not supposed to delve into the depths of the  merits  of the complaint   intended to be investigated by way of judicial review proceedings as that would amount to determining  the main motion thereby prejudicing the parties’ positions. What is required of the applicant(s) therefore  is to demonstrate  that  it (they) have an arguable prima facie case.  The court  must however, at the leave stage be cautious to ensure that its jurisdiction is not invoked to determine the merits of the decision making process or to act as an appellate court.   Where it is apparent that the intended application is seeking to challenge the merits of the administrative  or quasi-judicial body or authority, the court  would hesitate  to grant  leave.

13. In addition, where  the court  is persuaded  that there are other  available  efficacious  remedies  or forum for ventilating  the grievance  by the applicants, the court would  not be generous  in granting  leave to apply for judicial review  remedies  of  certiorari, mandamus and  prohibition.

14. Judicial Review  remedies  though  constitutionally guaranteed, they remain discretionary   in nature  and  therefore  they are  remedies   of the last resort  where there is no other efficacious  remedy.  The court  in granting leave  and ultimately, the orders sought must satisfy  itself  that there is  reasonable basis  to justify  the orders sought ( see Republic  v County  Council of Kwale  & Another  Exparte  Kondo & 97 Others Mombasa HCC Miscellaneous Application No. 384/96; Permanent Secretary Ministry of Planning  & National Development  Exparte  Kaimenyi (2006) 1EA 353.

15. In the instant case, the exparte applicants claim that the dispute   between them and the  1st respondent  was resolved vide JR  101/2016 wherein  the decision  of  the 1st applicant University  to suspend   the   1st respondent   for  examination irregularities  was quashed  and the University given 14 days  to commence disciplinary  proceedings in accordance with the law, against the 1st respondent herein and in default, the order of mandamus  compelling  it to release  his examination on his PhD  thesis for Doctor of Philosophy Degree in Management Science  submitted on  20th March 2015  be issued  or takes effect.

16. It is contended that  the respondents cannot purport  to inquire  into affidavits  filed in JR  101/2016  as the  1st respondent had an opportunity to cross examine  the deponent  thereof  and  if there was any   perjury  as alleged, it would  have been  determined  in those proceedings and  not vide  separate  proceedings. The applicants  read mischief,  abuse of  power and  bad faith  on the part of the  respondents.

17. The investigating authority who issued summons to the applicants  to appear for  interrogation  has not  challenged  the above allegations.  However. The  1st respondent  who is the  complainant claims that it is in order for the Director of Criminal Investigation to investigate  what he considers  perjury by the applicants and that  the investigations  are not limited  to JR 101/2016.

18. From the above rival positions, I am  satisfied that the applicants have  an arguable prima facie  case for consideration  indepth  at the substantive hearing, and that they have not advanced  a frivolous   claim.  I would in  the circumstances grant the  applicants  leave to institute  Judicial Review  proceedings  to challenge the decision by the Director  of Criminal Investigation   through its letter dated 9th January 2017; the inquiry No.120/2016   instituted  by the 1st  respondent  on the   alleged perjury  of the  applicants arising from  HC Miscellaneous  JR 101/2016  as prayed for in prayer No.2(a),(b) and (c)of the chamber summons.

19. This is not to say that the substantive  motion must  succeed   but that there are arguable issues  raised touching  on determined  proceedings which this  court must  investigate  into to establish  whether the  decision(s) by the  respondents are legal, regular, rational/reasonable and  or procedurally  proper.  By granting  leave, the court will be according the applicants an opportunity to ventilate  their grievances  and to accessing  justice.

20. On the  prayer for stay, the applicants complain that  unless  stay is granted, the substantive  motion if successful, will be rendered  nugatory.

21. The court  notes that  the letter dated  9th January  2017  from the Director of Criminal Investigations to the applicants through the legal officer   of the  1st  applicant   Kenyatta University  calls on the applicants to proceed to the Director of Criminal Investigations  to record statements  and  clarify  on the emerging   issues arising  from Miscellaneous Application  101/2016  and urges  the 2nd, 3rd and  4th applicants  to report to  the  Director of Criminal Investigations Headquarters  Serious Crimes  Unit   on 15th February  2017  at  10. a.m.  The  letter also  annexes  a requisition  to compel attendance  form  under Section  52(1)  of the National Police Service  Act, 2011, and  warns that   failure  to report constitutes an offence  and one can be liable  to imprisonment  punishable   under the said Section.

22. The decision   whether or not to grant  stay pursuant  to the leave   granted above is  an exercise of  judicial  discretion having regard  to the circumstances  of each case.

23. As stipulated  in Order  53  Rule  1(4) of the Civil Procedure  Rules, “ the grant of leave  under the  rule  to apply for  an order of  prohibition  or an order of  certiorari shall, if the judge  so direct, operate  as a stay  of the proceedings  in  question until the determination  of the application, or until the judge  orders  otherwise.”

24. From the above  provision, the court  granting  leave has wide  discretion to grant or to decline to grant stay of the implementation  of the impugned  decision,  where  the decision  has not been  implemented fully.   See George Phillip  Wekullo  V The Law Society of Kenya & another kak HC Miscellaneous  29/2005.

25. The court is also cautioned that in  an application for leave to apply for Judicial Review  and  for stay, it has to be  careful  in what it states lest it  touch on the  merits of the main  application for Judicial Review.  Therefore, where  the outcome of the Judicial Review  might be  contrary to the  conclusion   reached by  the body  or person  whose decision  is being  challenged, stay of  proceedings  should be  granted as it might  lead to an  awkward situation or foist upon the court a state of  hopelessness where it   finds that  a  decision which ought not to  have been made  had been concluded.  See Jared  Benson  Kangwana  V Attorney General Nairobi  HCC 446/1996, Taib  Ali Taib  v The Minister  for Local Government & Others  Mombasa  HC Miscellaneous  Application  158 of  2006  where Maraga J  ( as he then  was ) held, inter alia:

“…………The purpose of a stay  order  in Judicial Review  proceedings is to prevent the decision  maker  from  continuing   with the decision  making process  if the decision  has not been  made and  it is not limited to judicial or quasi judicial proceedings  as it  encompasses  the administrative  decision  making process being undertaken  by a public  body such  as a local authority or minister and the implementation of the decision of such a body if it  has  been taken…..”

26. Stay of implementation of the impugned decision is not automatic. Even where the  court grants  leave to apply   for Judicial Review  orders, it  may decline stay.  However, for  good administration, in the present  case,  I am satisfied  that owing to  the nature of the decision and  the challenge  thereto, if stay is declined, the Director of Criminal Investigations   will proceed  and complete the inquiry relating  to proceedings determined  by a court of competent  jurisdiction  thereby  allowing the Director of Criminal Investigations to jump  into the arena  of a court and even an appellate  court, before the Judicial Review proceedings are heard and determined.  In saying so, this court is alive to the statutory powers of the Director of Criminal Investigations under Section 24 of the National Police Service Act which powers are nonetheless not absolute. They are  subject to the law and the Constitution hence where there is a serious  allegation  of arbitrariness or abuse of  power,  this court  must halt the process until the merit of the allegations is fully  investigated  by the court exercising supervisory jurisdiction  over judicial and  quasi-judicial  bodies/persons or authority.

27. It is  for the above  reasons that I exercise my discretion and  order that the leave  herein  granted shall operate  as stay  of implementation of the decision  of the Director of Criminal Investigations dated  9th January 2017requiring the applicants   to record  any statements  respecting  inquiry  No. 120/2016   relating  to HC Miscellaneous  Application No. 101/2016 until the Judicial Review  proceedings once filed  are heard and  determined interpartes. The main motion to be filed  and served within 21 days from to date. Mention on 10/5/2017 to confirm compliance and for directions.

28. Costs shall be in the caus

Dated, signed and delivered in open court at Nairobi this 28th day of March 2017.

R.E. ABURILI

JUDGE

In the presence of

Mr Mwangi for applicants

Miss Machinda h/b for Oduor for 1st respondent

N/A for all other respondents

CA: George