Loyford Kaburu Joseph v Director of Public Prosecutions, Chief Magistrates, Makandara Law Courts, Inspector General of Police & Attorney General [2016] KEHC 2778 (KLR)

REPUBLIC OF KENYA

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA

AT NAIROBI

JUDICIAL REVIEW NO. 49  OF 2015

IN THE MATER OF  AN APPLICATION BY LOYFORD KABURU  JOSEPH  FOR LEAVE TO COMMENCE PROCEEDINGS  IN THE NATURE OF JUDICIAL REVIEW

AND

IN THE MATTER  OF SECTIONS 8 AND 9  OF THE LAW  REFORM  ACT, CAP  26 LAWS  OF KENYA

AND

IN THE MATTER OF  ORDER  53 OF THE CIVIL PROCEDURE  RULES

AND

IN THE MATTER  OF ARTICLE  20(1), (2), 21(1), 22(1), 25( C), 27(1), (2), 47(1), (2)  AND  258(1) OF THE  CONSTITUTION  OF KENYA  2010

BETWEEN

LOYFORD KABURU  JOSEPH……………………………..…....................APPLICANT

VERSUS

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

CHIEF MAGISTRATES, MAKANDARA LAW COURTS….....……...2ND RESPONDENT

INSPECTOR  GENERAL OF POLICE…………………...…..….....…3RD RESPONDENT

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

JUDGMENT

1. On  17th February  2015, Honourable  W. Korir J granted  the exparte  applicant  herein  Mr Loyford  Kaburu  Joseph  leave   of court to apply for Judicial Review Orders of certiorari  and  prohibition to:

a. Quash  the decision of the 1st  respondent  Director  of Public  prosecutions to charge the applicant herein  with the offence  of forcible  detainer  contrary to Section 91  of the Penal Code, Cap  63 Laws of Kenya in Makadara  Law Courts chief  Magistrate’s Court  criminal case No. 5432 of 2014.  Republic Vs Loyford Kaburu Joseph;and

b. Prohibit  the  3rd respondent  Inspector General of police from  arresting, investigating   and or preferring  any charges   whatsoever  against  the applicant  herein on account  of the same facts in Makadara  Law Courts  case No. 5432 of  2014, Republic  Vs Loyford  Kaburu Joseph.

2. The Learned Judge also  granted a stay for 90 days  and directed  that the substantive  Notice of Motion together  with skeletal submissions and list  of authorities  be filed  and served with   10 days from the date of that order, and pursuant to the Exparte  chamber summons  dated   17th February 2015  filed in  court on the  same day under  certificate of urgency.

3. The exparte  applicant  complied  with the said  orders and   instituted Notice of Motion dated  27th  February  2015   on the same   day seeking for the substantive  Judicial Review  orders of certiorari  and  prohibition  as per the leave  to apply granted  on 17th February  2015.

4. The  notice of  motion  was supported by the verifying affidavit  sworn by the  exparte  applicant   hereinLoyford  Kaburu Joseph, the statutory  statement  and annextures  annexed  thereto  as filed with  the application for  leave to apply dated   17th February  2015   and supporting  affidavit  filed  with the notice of motion  together  with  the annextures  thereto.

5. In the grounds, verifying  affidavit,  statutory  statement  and the supporting affidavit which  all  provide the same back ground  to  these Judicial  Review  proceedings, the Exparte  applicant avers and  deposes that:

1. The  1st respondent has unilaterally, arbitrarily and capriciously commenced criminal  proceedings  in Makadara Law  Courts CM’S  Court Criminal case  No. 5432 of  2014   Republic vs  Loyford  Kaburu  Joseph.

2. That although the applicant is charged  in Count 1  with the offence of  forcible  detainer  contrary to Section  91  of the Penal Code  and Count  2 with the offence of  giving  false  information to a person  employed  in the public   service contrary to Section  129(b)  of the Penal Code, the said  criminal proceedings  against  the applicant   have been  commenced  against him with regard  to the illegal and fraudulent transfer of his parcel of land by his estranged  wife to another  person.

3. That there   exists  a land  litigation matter at the Chief  Magistrates Court   at Milimani being Civil  case No. 7 of  2014  between one James  Njuguna  Munyui as the plaintiff  herein  as the defendant  as shown by  annexed  copy of plaint in the  said civil matter, which is  yet to be  concluded  hence the issue of ownership  of the plot subject  matter thereof  and of the criminal  charges  is yet to be determined.

4. Further, that one Peninah Wanjiku  did on 26th March  2014  lodge  a complaint at Kayole  Police station that the applicant herein  had forcibly  detained her property contrary to Section  91 of the Penal Code.

5. That in the purported sale and  transfer of the plot 622C  Soweto  subject of  the criminal proceedings at Makadara Law Courts and the civil suit  pending in  Milimani Chief Magistrate’s Court, the said  Peninah  Wanjiku  is only  but a witness  and not  purchaser  or owner of the said  plot.

6. Accordingly, it is deposed  that  the complainant  in the criminal  proceedings  Peninah  Wanjiku has no   standing to press  charges  against  the exparte applicant  herein, as the only sale agreement  is between  James Njuguna  Munyui, who   is her  husband and  Jane Kawira  the  exparte  applicant’s  estranged wife.

7. It is  therefore contended that  preferring  criminal charges against  the exparte applicant  herein is unlawful   and an abuse of the court  process  and  a waste of judicial time  and that  unless restrained, the  respondent’s actions are  prejudicial  to the exparte   applicant  since the  trumped  up charges are frivolous, vexatious and  oppressive  to the applicant  hence it  is in the  best  interest  of  justice  that the Judicial  Review orders of  certiorari  and prohibition do issue.

6. In a  detailed  rejoinder  to the  exparte  applicant’s  notice  of motion, the 1st  and  3rd  respondents  filed  a  replying affidavit   sworn by  No. 55117 Corporal David  Kibet  who is the investigating  officer in the impugned criminal case stationed  at CID  Kayole  Branch, Nairobi  and is conversant with all the matters,  facts and   circumstances concerning  and  relating to the subject matter of the proceedings  herein.

7. In his  20 paragraph  affidavit, CPL David Kibet  deposed that  on 13th October  2014  a complaint   was  made  at Kayole  police station  by the applicant   between that his plot No. 662C situated in Soweto had been sold by his  wife.  That  James Njuguna   and Penina Wanjiku also  complained to the police   that the applicant   herein had  refused to vacate  from a land  that they  had legitimately bought from Jane Wawira  Nyaga, the applicant’s wife.  That following   those two different  complaints,  the deponent  investigated  and established  that the suit  plot was  originally allotted to the applicant herein  who transferred  it to his  wife Jane Wawira  Nyaga voluntarily.  That after the couple  separated, Jane Wawira  Nyaga sold  the plot to James Njuguna  through his wife   Peninah Wanjiku   at a sum of shs  818,000.

8. That it  was after acquiring the  suit plot  that James Njuguna   wrote to the applicant herein through  his advocate  giving  the applicant a notice to vacate but that  the applicant refused saying that the plot belonged to him.  That when  the police  carried  out forensic  examination  of signatures  and handwriting on the transfer  documents and letters  as compared  to the exparte applicant’s known  handwriting  and signature, they established that  it  was  him who had signed transfer and  written  the letter   passing ownership of the  suit  plot to his wife Jane Wawira  Nyaga. And that it  was then that the police  preferred  the impugned  charges  against  the applicant.

9. It  was further deposed  that the Director of Public Prosecutions  is empowered under Article 157(6) of the Constitution  to institute, undertake, take over and continue or terminate criminal proceedings hence the  respondent  is discharging its duties  and functions  in the public  interest  and administration of justice among other constitutional functions. That the respondent  had not abused  or exceeded  its powers or failed  to   comply  with any legal  or constitutional  provisions  in charging  the  applicant with a criminal offence.

10. It  was  further deposed that the applicant  is seeking to curtail  powers  and mandate  of the  criminal justice  system as enshrined in the Constitution.  The deponent also  denied  that the criminal charges  were framed  or tramped  up against  exparte the applicant.  It  was  further  deposed that the  applicant  has failed  to demonstrate  that the  prosecution had not  acted  independently  or had acted   capriciously, in bad  faith or had abused   legal process to trigger   this court’s  intervention.  Further, that the  respondents  had not  acted in  excess of  or without  jurisdiction  and neither  had they  breached  the rules  of  natural justice   in directing  that the exparte applicant be charged  with criminal  offences, having reviewed the evidence and  witness statements  before making  the decision  to charge the exparte applicant, and urged the court to  dismiss the Judicial Review  proceedings.

11. Both parties filed written submissions.

12. In the applicant’s  submissions dated  11th July 2016, it was contended that the charges framed  against him  are arbitrary, and  capricious because they  relate to  a dispute where his  wife’s  illegal  and fraudulent  transfer of  his Plot 622C Soweto  to another  person  and that   there is  a civil suit  CMCC Milimani 7/2014  pending  between James Njuguna    Munyui as plaintiff and the applicant herein with a hearing date  fixed for  16th April 2015, which  matter relates  to ownership  of the suit  plot and  which is yet to be  concluded.  Further, that  in any case, in the impugned  charge sheet, Peninah  Wanjiku who is the  complaint therein is but  only a witness in the sale agreement   hence   not  the owner of  the land therefore  she  has no legal  standing  to lodge  criminal  proceedings  against  the exparte applicant herein and that a witness  to a sale  agreement  cannot turn out to be the purchaser  thereof  complaining  of being  deprived of  possession of the land by the  exparte applicant.

13. Further, that even in the purported  complainant’s  statement to the police, she  states that it is  her husband  who purportedly  purchased  the suit  plot from  the applicant’s  estranged  wife.  Consequently, it  was submitted that the preferring  of criminal charges  against the  applicant  was unlawful illegal, irregular  and couched  in procedural  impropriety   which the court should  not condone.  The exparte applicant urged  the court to grant the Judicial Review   orders of certiorari and  prohibition.  He relied on the case of Pastoli Vs  Kabale  Local Government   Council and Others  [2008] 2 EA  300  where the court  held that:

“ In order to succeed in an application for  Judicial Review, the  applicant has to show  that the  decision  or act  complained of is tainted  with illegality, irrationality and procedural impropriety……illegality is when the decision making authority  commits an error  of law in the process of taking or making  that act, the subject  of the complaint.  Acting  without  jurisdiction or ultra vires, or  contrary to the provisions of a law or its  principles s are instances of illegality……”

14. The applicant  maintained that the decision  to charge the exparte applicant  by the respondents  is an abuse  of the court process, illegal, irrational and clouded in procedural impropriety  and that the continued trial of the exparte applicant  by the Chief  Magistrate’s  court will result in manifest  injustice hence, the orders sought should be granted  to stop the said  injustice  being   done to the  applicant.

15. In the view of the exparte applicant, the criminal proceedings  and civil proceedings  going on at  the same time  will embarrass him.

16. The respondent  filed submissions dated 18th July 2016 reiterating  the depositions in the replying  affidavit  of  No. 55117 Corporal  David  Kibet   whose contents   I have reproduced  in this judgment with emphasis  that the charges  preferred  against  the applicant  in criminal case No 5432/2014 are properly before the court  and  disclose  offences recognized  under  the laws of Kenya  and that   the respondents’  decisions  were proper and  within the law  and in execution of their  constitutional mandates.

17. Further, it  was contended  that in any event, existence  of a civil suit  does not preclude  the bringing  of criminal  charges against  the applicant even  if the  issues in question are the same, as stipulated  in  Section 193A  of the Criminal Procedure  Code.

18. It was the respondents’  submissions  that the  application herein seeks  to curtail the mandate  of the criminal  justice  system actors  as stipulated in the Constitution.

19. Further, that there is no evidence  that the  exparte applicant will in any  way be prejudiced by his  continued  prosecution in the criminal proceedings  against him nor that there is an  abuse  of court process.  That the  accuracy or correctness of  the evidence  will be  assessed by the  trial court  which is best placed  to deal  with the quality  and sufficiency  of evidence  gathered  and properly  adduced  before the trial court.

20. That  the Director of Public Prosecutions is an independent  office  which does not  operate  under  directions of  any person as stipulated  in Article  249(2) of the  Constitution  hence the  Judicial Review proceedings hereto are misconceived, unfounded, unmeritorious  and baseless  since there is  no demonstration that the respondents   failed to  act  independently  or that they  acted  capriciously or in bad   faith or even abused  legal  process  in a manner as to invite   the court’s intervention  in this matter.

21. Further, that it had not been demonstrated  that the respondents  lacked  jurisdiction, acted in excess  of jurisdiction or departed from the rules  of natural  justice  in directing  that the applicants be charged  with criminal offences.

22. It  was  further submitted that the  applicant had not  established the existence of  conditions  precedent for  grant of orders  of prohibition as there is  no evidence of  misuse of  power  or contravention of the rules  of natural  justice  as alleged  by the applicant. Reliance was placed  on the decision in  Kenya  National  Examination Council Vs Republic Exparte  Geoffrey Gathenji  Njoroge & Others  CA 266/1996 wherein it  was stated that   an order of prohibition is not intended  to correct   the cause, practice or  procedure  of an inferior  tribunal  therefore, that the  respondents  ought not to be interfered  with in the running of  their affairs. The respondents urged the court  to dismiss the application herein   with costs  since it is an  abuse of the court process.

Determination.

23. I have carefully considered  the  Judicial Review motion herein  instituted by the exparte applicant  against the  respondent’s  seeking  to  quash  the decision  by  the respondents  to charge the exparte applicant with criminal offences;  and  to prohibit  the continuance  of the prosecution which is pending  before the Makadara Chief Magistrate’s Court  on account  that there  is a similar  case  or proceedings going on before Milimani Chief Magistrates  court touching  on the same  subject matter  hence the  criminal charges   are orchestrated by   bad faith.

24. I have given  equal consideration to the replying affidavit sworn by the  investigating officer  No. 55117  Cpl David Kibet   and the parties  rival written  submissions and  authorities, and  constitutional  as well as statutory law  relied on by counsels on record.

25. Article  165(1), (6)  of the Constitution clothes this court  with jurisdiction  to supervise subordinate  courts, bodies  or authorities   or any person exercising  a judicial or  quasi judicial  function.  That jurisdiction is intended  to be exercised  to curb  abuse of power  or process. In Mohamed Gulam Hussein Farzal  Karmah & Another V CM’s Court  Nairobi [2006] e KLR Nyamu J observed  that:

“ whilst  the power of the High  Court to intervene to stop a criminal  prosecution must be  exercised sparingly, the High Court   always be ready to intervene to prevent   any prosecution  which is  vexatious, oppressive  malafides, frivolous or taken up for  other proper  purpose  such as undue harassment   of a party or abuse  of the process of the court.”

26. From the above  persuasive decision, it is  clear that no judicial  or quasi judicial power or function  should be  exercised  unreasonably, irrationally or in excess of jurisdiction or without  jurisdiction or  in bad faith  or in breach  of the rules of   natural justice and where such  occurs, then the High  Court  is empowered  to intervene  to correct  the  abuse  or misuse  of the criminal  justice  system  as well as abuse  of court process.

27. Nonetheless, the Director  of Public  Prosecutions is empowered  by Article  157(1)  of the Constitution  to  direct  the prosecution of any person suspected  of committing  a criminal  offence.  On the other hand, the Inspector General of Police  is empowered  under the National police Service Act  to investigate  any allegation of criminal conduct through the Department of the Directorate of Criminal Investigation Department and recommend to the Director of Public Prosecutions for possible prosecution.

28. The Director of Public  Prosecutions  has the mandate  under Article 157(1) of the Constitution to direct the National Police Service to investigate  any  allegation or complaint of criminal  conduct. He is also empowered under section 5 of Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions Act,2013 to direct the Inspector-General to investigate any information or allegation of criminal conduct and the Inspector-General shall comply with any such direction. The office of  Director of Public prosecution  Act No 2 of 2013 also mandates  the Director of Public Prosecution to initiate  and undertake criminal prosecution against  any person.

29. The power of the Director of Public prosecution, however, is not  absolute.  It is  subject to  checks  imposed by Article  157(1) of  the Constitution  which stipulates that in the exercise of that power he must have regard to public  interest in the administration of justice  and the need to prevent and  avoid abuse of  legal process. In other words, if the Director of Public Prosecution acts contrary to the established  constitutional  and statutory  norms, the court  is mandated d to intervene.  It is  not the mandate of this court in these  proceedings to determine the merits  or demerits  of the pending criminal case  against  the exparte  applicant  as it is not  the trial court.   It is  neither  the duty  of this court  to determine  the sufficiency  or otherwise of  the evidence  that the prosecution  in the pending  criminal case  intends  to call to prove the  criminal charges  framed  against  the exparte  applicant herein.

30. The only question is whether  as averred  and seriously  contended by the exparte  applicant, there are civil proceedings  pending  between him and other  parties over the same subject  matter  which is over land or property  known  as plot No, 622C situate  in Soweto village , Kayole within  Nairobi City County and whether by cinitiating the separate and parallel criminal proceedings against the exparte applicant, the respondents are abusing their power and acting irrationally, and in bad faith. Annexture KLJI is the charge  sheet  in criminal  5432/2014  wherein  the accused person is Loyford  Kaburu Joseph, the exparte applicant herein.  The charges  were  drawn after   his arrest on 12th November  2014.  The charge/offences  is (are) Forcible detainer contrary to Section 91 of the  Penal Code; giving  false  information to a person employed in  the public service  contrary to Section 129(b)  of the Penal Code.

31. In the particulars  of the charges thereon, it is alleged that on 24th August  2013  at Soweto  in Embakasi  District within Nairobi County, being  in possession of plot No. 622C  of Peninah Wanjiku without  colour of right, held possession  of the said   land in a manner  likely to cause a breach of  the peace or reasonable apprehension  of a breach of the peace, against  Peninah Wanjiku who  is entitled  by law to the possession  of the  said land.

32. In count  2  of giving false  information to a person employed  in the public  service, the particulars are that  on 10th April  2014   at Kayole Police Station in  Embakasi District  within Nairobi  County, informed No.55117 Corporal  David Kibet, employed  in  the public  service as a police officer  that  your wife  Jane  Wawira  Nyaga  forged documents  of plot No. 622C information  you knew or  believed  to be false, intending  thereby  causing  the  said David Kibet   to use  his lawful power to the said Jane Wawira Nyaga. The witnesses named in the charge sheet are  Peninah  Wanjiku who is also the   complainant in the charge sheet, Mrs Jane Wawira  (the applicant/accused person’s wife), Justus  Mutua and Job Kirundui.  According to the  exparte  applicant, the above  charges are illegal, irregular  and laced with procedural  impropriety  and should be  quashed because they emanate  from a civil  dispute  pitying  him, his  wife    Jane  Wawira Nyaga  and one James  Njuguna Munyui  who is the complainant and Peninah Wanjiku’s  husband, which  matter is  pending  before the Chief Magistrate’s court at Milimani   Commercial court vide  CMCC No. 7/2014.

33. Further, the  exparte  applicant  asserts that the complainant  in the criminal case is merely  a witness in the sale  agreement for disposal  of the plot 622C Soweto village, Kayole  and not   the purchaser thereof. He further  claims that  in any case, the civil suit   pending  is what  will determine  ownership of the subject  land hence  the  police  or Director of Public Prosecutions  cannot  purport  to  charge him with forcible detainer  before ownership thereof  is  established  by the civil court.  The  exparte  applicant  laments that  the police are  being used by his estranged wife  to frustrate  him hence  they must be  prohibited  and the decision  to charge  him quashed   as it is an abuse of court process.

34. On the other hand, the respondent contend that the  court herein  is being called  upon to interfere  with the  criminal process  which is  a  legitimate  process  since forensic  evidence  gathered  by the police  following  a complaint by  the ‘owner’ of the land  in issue  showed that the  exparte applicant    herein executed  transfer   of land documents   in favour  of his wife  Jane Wawira  Nyaga  and who in turn  sold  the suit  plot to Mr James Njuguna  Munyui but that he later turned around to disown his actions  of transferring the plot to his  wife voluntarily and reported to  the police   that the transfer documents had been forged  by his said wife Jane Wawira  Nyaga .  That after forensic  investigations, the  deponent investigator found that the exparte applicant herein was found to  have executed  the disputed documents hence  the charge  of giving  false investigation to a person  employed  in the public service.  Further, that the exparte applicant forcibly remained  in possession of the  suit land/plot  hence the first  count  of forcible  detainer.

35. From the above rival positions, and in the midst of all the accusations counter accusations is plot No. 622C Soweto village  in Kayole. In the plaint filed  on 6th January  2014  by James Njuguna  Munyui  against Loyford  Kaburu  Joseph,  filed at  Milimani Commercial  CMs Court, the plaintiff therein  James Njuguna  Munyui  claims that  he is  the proprietor  and or lawful owner of  all that property  known  as plot  No. 622C Soweto/Kayole  within Nairobi County, having  purchased   it from Jane Wawira Nyaga, the defendant (exparte) applicant’s wife on 15th October  2013  and that the seller  and her family including  the exparte  applicant herein  agreed    to vacate  the same on 1st December  2013  and thereafter the plaintiff would collect total monthly  rental income  of shs  15,000/-.  The purchase price/consideration was shs 900,000 according to the agreement  dated   15th October  2013 annexed and marked (LKJ2). The sale agreement   was witnessed  by Peninah  Wanjiku. In the said  plaint, the plaintiff  seeks the following prayers:

a) A declaration that the defendant’s  continued occupation and or possession over plot 622C situated  in Soweto  village is illegal and is inimical  to the  plaintiff’s rights to property.

b) A permanent  injunction  restraining  the defendant  whether  by himself or his agents, servants  or employees  from interfering , selling, disposing  off, entering  into, accessing, alienating, trespassing, and/or  accessing  the plaintiff’s  property whether by himself  his agents  and further restraining  the defendant  whether   by himself or his agents, servants or employees from  collecting   and or/deriving  rental income  from the semi  permanent  rooms   erected  on plot  622C situate  in Soweto village.

c) A mandatory  injunction evicting  the defendant from plot No. 622C situated in Soweto village.

d) Mesne  profits  for trespassing,

e) Costs  of the suit and   interest   at court’s rate.

f)  Any other  relief that the Honourable court may deem  just  and fit.

36. In short, what the plaintiff   is saying in the above   civil suit    which  was  instituted  against the exparte  applicant herein  is that the  latter  has without  colour of right  encroached /trespassed  onto plot No. 622C Soweto village  belonging  to the  plaintiff  and refused  to vacate therefore  the exparte  applicant should  vacate  or be evicted since  his occupation  of the suit plot  is unlawful.  Further, that  the  plaintiff is entitled  to compensation in mesne profits   due to the exparte  applicant’s continued  unlawful  occupation of the suit  plot.

37. From the above undisputed facts, I have   no doubt in my  mind that in the civil suit which is still pending hearing and determination in the lower court, the plaintiff’s  claim against  the exparte  applicant herein who is the defendant therein is a case of  trespass to land   and that is  why he is  seeking reliefs  of eviction and mesne  profits  to compensate  him for  non use of his land.

38. However, the striking  feature  about the charge sheet  in the impugned criminal case  is that  it alleges that  the exparte  applicant  has forcibly detained or  occupied  the same suit plot 622C Soweto/Kayole  in Nairobi  County, and  this time round, the property is now  owned  by Peninah  Wanjiku  who is  the complainant  and who is  not a party in CMCC 7/2014.

39. On the basis of the above  assessment, I am  persuaded that the  dispute  between the  parties hereto is purely of civil nature and that the  police  and Director of Public Prosecutions  were being  dragged into the  matter improperly.  There  is an established  civil legal process  for resolving   disputes relating to ownership, title to and trespass to  land as  stipulated  in Article  162(2) (b) of the Constitution, noting   that even   the notice to vacate  the land dated  4th November  2013  alleges  that the applicant   is the tenant. The plaintiff  in CMCC 7/2014  has initiated   that process.

40. From   annexture  LKJ4, this court  gets the clearest  impression  that when the plaintiff in CMCC 7/2014 filed that suit and contemporaneous with the plaint, sought for mandatory  interlocutory  injunction restraining  the exparte applicant and or compelling him to  vacate the  suit land  and to deliver vacant  possession of the suit  land/plot to the plaintiff and  upon his application for mandatory  interlocutory  injunction  being dismissed on 7th March 2014 by  Honourable Lorot H.R. with costs  to  the exparte  applicant herein, that is when   the plaintiff in that suit, who is the husband to the complainant in the impugned criminal case  resorted   to the criminal justice  system  by using his wife  Peninah Wanjiku  to initiate  criminal proceedings of forcible  detainer  vide criminal 5432/2014.

41. In my humble view that  is a clear  manifestation of being mischievous, frivolous, vexatious  and an abuse of the court  and legal process leave  alone  malafides. If the  plaintiff in the civil suit  who is the husband  to Peninah  Wanjiku the complaint in the criminal  case   was dissatisfied  with the decision of the magistrate  dismissing his application for mandatory injunction, he should   have appealed   against that  order/ruling  or in the  alternative, fast tracked  the hearing of his suit against  the exparte  applicant, and not to  reincarnate  through his wife to initiate  criminal  proceedings  against the exparte  applicant.

42. On the basis of the above facts which are undisputed, I find that  the exparte  applicant has a legitimate  complaint  against the  respondents  who are no doubt  being used to abuse the legal  and judicial process.

43. As correctly submitted by the  exparte  applicant’s  counsel, the  pending civil  suit is  raising  questions of ownership  of plot  No. 622 C Soweto village, Kayole which  has not been resolved.  If the police  did assist the plaintiff in that case to carry out  forensic  investigations  to  determine  whether  the exparte  applicant  did execute  transfer  documents  in favour  of his  wife, then that  forensic  evidence should  be adduced  in the civil suit to prove  ownership of the plot, and not  to press  criminal charges   against the exparte applicant  while  the civil suit  which was instituted earlier  is still  pending  before a court of competent  jurisdiction.

44. In the National  Assembly V Honourable  James Njenga Karume  CA 92/1992  Nairobi the Court of Appeal stated that:

“  In our  view, there is  considerable  merit in the submission that  where  there is  a clear  procedure  for the  redress of any particular grievance  prescribed  by the Constitution  or an Act  of Parliament, that procedure  should  be strictly followed. We  observe  without  expressing  a concluded  view that order 53  of the Civil Procedure Rule cannot  oust  clear  constitutional and statutory  provisions.”

45. In my humble  view, the civil suit No. 7/2014  should first  be heard and determined on its merits  and since the  plaintiff therein  and the complainant  in the criminal  case are  no doubt  claiming  under the same  title, if they  are successful, they   will  enforce the evictions  and  mandatory  injunctive  orders  as prayed therein, as  well as  execute  for the recovery of mesne  profits  for unlawful  use of  their land, since  the plaintiff is  seeking   declaratory  orders that  the suit  plot belongs to  him and the situation has not  changed and it has not been demonstrated  that such  position  has changed, as  shown  by the affidavit sworn by  No. 55117  Corporal David  Kibet.

46. Indeed, if the police and Director of Public Prosecutions  are relying on the same  sale agreement  between  Jane Wawira  Nyaga and James  Njuguna to press  forcible detainer charges  against  the exparte  applicant, which  is the same  agreement that the plaintiff in the civil suit  is relying  on to claim  ownership of plot 622C Soweto  then it  is irrational to claim that the complainant  in the forcible  detainer  charges  is Peninah  Wanjiku.It is  immaterial  that the  money  was transferred by Peninah Wanjiku, since  she is not  privy to the sale agreement  in question and neither does  that sale agreement  indicate  that she  was   the beneficiary  of the transaction, going  by  Annexture  DIC 2  dated  15th October  2013.

47. In my humble  view, Section  193A of the Criminal Procedure Code would only  come to the aid  of the respondents  if they  had not  acted  in bad faith  as is apparent  in this  case that  they are using  the criminal  process  to enforce a pending   civil claim  which is  not determined   and after   the plaintiff in the civil suit miserably failing  to obtain a mandatory  injunction which was to be used to evict the exparte  applicant from the disputed  plot 622C Soweto/Kayole before the main suit is heard and determined.

48. As earlier  stated, this court  will intervene  in criminal  proceedings, where it  is apparent  that  the respondents  are clearly  abusing  the powers and  functions entrusted  upon them in the  execution of their  statutory  or even constitutional mandate.

49. The remedy  of  Judicial Review  is concerned  with the decision  making process  and not the  merits of the decision or with  private  rights  of individuals. It  is meant  to ensure that individuals  are given  fair treatment by  the body  to which  they are   subjected to as   was held  in the case of Republic  Vs Secretary  of State   for  Education and Science  Exparte  Avon County Council [1991] 1 ALL ER  282.

50. Judicial  Review  orders  of certiorari  lies to  quash the decision  of a body, person or  authority  exercising   judicial or quasi judicial jurisdiction, which is made without   jurisdiction  or in excess of jurisdiction or where  the body  has failed  to apply  the rules of natural justice  or fair administrative  action, where the decision  is illegal  or unreasonable  ( see CA 266/1999 KNEC  V Republic Exparte  Godfrey  Githinji.

51. In applying the principles  set out in numerous  case law  cited, and considering the judicial review orders sought in these proceedings, I find that the decision by the 1st and  3rd respondents  to invoke  the criminal justice  system  to prefer criminal  charges  against the  exparte   applicant  in a matter which  is purely  civil in nature  was not only unreasonable but also  irrational and irregular. I am fortified by the decision in Associated  Provincial Picture House V Wednesbury Corporation (1948)  1 KB  233, where Lord Green MR Pronounced himself  that:

“ Decisions of persons  or bodies  which  perform public duties  or functions  will be liable to be  quashed  or otherwise dealt  with by appropriate order of Judicial  Review  proceedings  where  the  court concludes that the decision is such that  no  person or body properly  directing  itself  on the relevant law  and acting  reasonably could have  reached that decisions.”

52. In the instant case, the decision  by the police  and the Director of Public Prosecution  to charge  the exparte applicant with forcible detainer of plot 622C purportedly  belonging to Peninah Wanjiku  when there is a  pending civil suit vide  CMCC 7/2014 between Peninah Wanjiku’s husband  James  Njuguna  Munyui who claims to have bought  it from the  exparte  applicant’s  estranged  wife at  a consideration, and  which civil suit seeks to determine   not only the  ownership of the suit plot  but also  the lawfulness of the exparte  applicant’s continued  occupation of the same,  was  to say the least, unreasonable, unconscionable, arbitrary and oppressive.

53. In addition, as the matters in dispute can effectively be resolved  through  civil litigation, shifting of claimants in the same dispute or matter to achieve  a conviction against the  exparte  applicant by all means is not only abuse of power but also amounts to abuse of the court process and malafides  and more so, unlawful on the part of the  Director of Public  prosecutions who ought  to seriously peruse  files to determine  what is criminal and   what is not, as was  stated in  Peter George  Anthony D’costa  V Attorney General & Another  Petition 83/2010 where  the court  was emphatic that:

“ The process of the court  must be  used properly  and in good   faith and must not be  abused.   This means that the court  will summarily  prevent its  machinery  from being used  as  a means of  vexatious  and oppressive  in  the process of litigation.  It follows that  where there is  an abuse  of  the court process, it is  the  duty of the court  to stop such  an abuse   of the court process.”

54. In Republic   V Commissioner of Police   and Another Exparte Michael  Monari [2012] e KLR the  court defined   abuse of court process  as :

“ proceedings  taken in bad faith or circumstances  yielding  an inference that they  were up to no good.  Criminal law is not to be used  oppressively  to punish acts  which in truth  might be technically  a breach of criminal law  but which   contains no real    vice and  which can  only be best handled   under a process other then  the criminal process namely any of the  different systems  of civil remedies. See Floriculture International Ltd HCC  144/1997. ”

55. In my view, the civil litigation process also  exists  to provide  effective  remedies to  disputants  especially on issues of ownership of land   and where  such  process  has been initiated  by  the private persons themselves, the police  and the Director of Public Prosecutions  have no business to interfere and purport  to  press criminal  charges against  the offending  parties. Such  conduct  is what  subjects the  public tax payers  to unwarranted  costs of  paying for  damages in malicious  prosecution  claims and which can be  avoided.

56. Accordingly, I find that the exparte applicant has made out  a case for  Judicial Review  Order of certiorari  to remove  into this court  and  quash  the decision  of the police  and the Director of Public Prosecution to prefer criminal charges against the exparte applicant in the attendant  criminal proceedings  pending  before the Chief  Magistrate  in Criminal  5432/2014.  Republic Vs Loyford Kaburu Joseph which decision and charge are hereby removed into the High Court and quashed.

57. On the prayer  for Judicial Review  order of  prohibition, the purpose of Judicial Review  remedy of prohibition is to prohibit  the body charged  with the decision  making, from  making or taking any further  or contemplated  steps  without jurisdiction or in breach of the rules of  natural justice  as  was held  in the case  of KNEC (supra)  that:

“ What  does an order of  prohibition do and when will it  issue?   It is an  order from the  High Court   directed to an inferior  tribunal  or body  which forbids that tribunal  or body  to  continue  proceedings  therein in excess of its jurisdiction or in  contravention of the laws of the land  it lies, not  only for excess of jurisdiction, or absence of  it, but   also for a departure  from the rules   of natural  justice.  It does  not, however, lie to correct  the course, practice  or procedure  of an inferior  tribunal  or a wrong  decision  on the merits of the proceedings.”

58. In the instant case, I have  already  pronounced  that the decision  to charge the exparte  applicant with the offences  as per the  charge sheet   namely  forcible   detainer   and the entire  criminal proceedings  pending  in Makadara Chief Magistrate’s Court criminal 5432/2014  are hereby  quashed  by an order of certiorari.  That being the case, there remains  nothing  capable of being prohibited. Accordingly, I decline  to issue  Judicial  Review  order of  prohibition  as prayed  and proceed  to dismiss it.

59. In the end, I allow the  exparte  applicants  Notice of Motion  dated  27th February  2015  in terms of prayer  No. 1  in the following terms:

a. That   a Judicial  Review  Order  of certiorari  be and is  hereby  issued  removing into this court and  quashing the criminal proceedings and or  charges against the  exparte  applicant herein Loyford Kaburu Joseph as initiated  by the  1st and   3rd  respondents and pending before  the  2nd respondent    vide  Makadara  Chief Magistrate’s  Court criminal  case No. 5432  of  2014  between Republic vs  Loyford  Kaburu Joseph.

b. Each party to bear their own costs of these Judicial Review proceedings including for application for  leave to apply.

Dated, signed and delivered in open  court at Nairobi  this  13th day of September 2016.

R.E. ABURILI

JUDGE

In the presence of (judgment t date was given in court in the presence of all parties’ advocates)

No appearance for Exparte  applicant

No appearance for  the respondent

Court Assistant  Adline