Patrick Macharia Nderitu v Director of CID & Director of Public Prosecutions [2017] KEHC 4275 (KLR) | Judicial Review | Esheria

Patrick Macharia Nderitu v Director of CID & Director of Public Prosecutions [2017] KEHC 4275 (KLR)

Full Case Text

REPUBLIC OF KENYA

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA

AT NAIROBI

JUDICIAL REVIEW NO.  497 OF 2016

IN THE MATTER OF LAW REFORM ACT, CAP 26, LAWS OF KENYA

AND

IN THE MATTER OF THE CONSTITUTION OF KENYA

AND

IN THE MATTER OF THE INTENDED LEVYING OF CRIMINAL CHARGES AGAINST

PATRICK MACHARIA NDERITU, AT THE CHIEF MAGISTRATES COURT AT KIBERA

AND

IN THE MATTER OF AN APPLICATION BY PATRICK MACHARIA NDERITU

FOR LEAVE TO APPLY FOR ORDERS OF PROHIBITION, CERTIORARI

PATRICK MACHARIA NDERITU.........................................APPLICANT

VERSUS

THE DIRECTOR OF CID...........................................1ST RESPONDENT

THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS.....2ND RESPONDENT

JUDGMENT

1. On  18th October  2016  the court granted  leave  to the exparte  applicant Patrick Macharia Nderitu to apply for Judicial  Review  orders of  certiorari  and  prohibition and also ordered  that the leave  granted do  operate as stay after  hearing the chamber  summons  interparties.

2. The applicant  dutifully  filed the  substantive  motion on  25th October  2016  within  the 21 days stipulated  in the order of granting  leave.  The main motion  which is  dated  24th  October  2016   seeks for  the  following orders:-

a. An order  of certiorari  to remove into  the  honourable court, the proceedings before the 1strespondent, the  Director  of Criminal Investigations Department and or the Land Fraud Unit, CID Headquarters for the purposes  of being quashed, and quash the proceedings  and the intended charge  sheet therein;

b. An order of prohibition directed at the respondents prohibiting   them from presenting a charge sheet against him, charging him with a criminal offence relating to LR No. Nairobi/Block 94/66, Nairobi, and or consolidating the intended charge sheet   with criminal case No. 616 of 2012 of Kibera Chief Magistrate’s Court, or bringing any charges against the applicant, arising from the same transaction as the current case.

c. An order of prohibition directed at the respondents, prohibiting them from presenting a charge sheet   against him, charging him with a criminal offence relating to LR No. Nairobi/Block 94/66, Nairobi  and  or consolidating  the intended charge sheet with criminal case No. 6161/2012  at Kibera Chief  Magistrate’s Court, or bring   any charges against the applicant, arising   from the  same transaction as the current  case  before any court in Kenya

d. An order of prohibition directed at the respondents, prohibiting the respondents from presenting a charge sheet against him, charging him with a criminal offence  relating to  LR No.  Nairobi/Bock 94/66, before any court including the Chief Magistrate’s Court in Kibera.

e. Costs of this application be provided for.

3. The application, as  required by the provisions of Order  53 of the Civil Procedure Rules, is supported by the grounds  contained in the statutory  statement  and  verifying  affidavit  and  annextures  all  supporting  or accompanying  the  chamber summons for leave dated  17th October  2016.

4. The exparte  applicant’s  case as  detailed in the  facts relied  upon in  the  statutory  statement  and the verifying  affidavit is that he is a businessman and that on several  occasions, he  has been  summoned by the CID Land Fraud Department  and asked to write a statement on what he knows about the sale transaction relating  to land  LR No. Nairobi/Block 94/66.

5. Upon  being summoned, he was shown the  statement of one  Stanley Kihiko for Puthucode Krishnaiyer Seshadri, the  complainant  therein.

6. That the said   statement  does not   mention the applicant or at all  with regard  to the mentioned  land  and  neither  does he know the  complainant  as he  has never  dealt  with them.   That  although  the police  have recorded  several  statements  from the applicant since  2012, they have never   charged him  with any offence but that they have been intimidating and  threatening  him  with criminal charges  if he   fails to  show them or to produce the vendors of LR No.  Nairobi/Block/94/66.

7. That the police are threatening  to arrest  and charge  the  applicant  with obtaining  money by false  pretences  yet there  is no  complaint  against  him regarding  the sale  of LR No. Nairobi/Block 94/66.

8. That on  11th October  2016  the  1st respondent  appeared  before the Chief Magistrate’s Court at Kibera during the hearing of  criminal case  No. 6161/2012   Republic vs  Thomas  NyakanguMaosa  and  another and informed  the court that he is in the  process of arresting  and  charging  the  exparte applicant.

9. That  on 13th October  2016  a CID officer  called the  applicant  and  directed  the  applicant  to appear before  the  Kibera Court  on 19th October 2016  to take a plea  for the offence of obtaining  money  by false pretence  contrary to  Section  313  of the Penal Code and in default  thereof, a warrant of  arrest  would be   issued.

10. That the actions and  procedure  adopted  by the respondents  in charging the  applicant  because  the applicant  cannot  produce vendors in LR No, Nairobi/Block  94/66  is malicious,  vexatious   and an abuse  of the court process, and  tainted  with ulterior   motive  on the part of the  respondents; that the respondent’s actions violate  the legal principles  of the  Constitution, is in bad faith, is in breach  of the fundamental rights  and  freedoms and  calls for this court’s intervention.

11. That the actions of the Director of Public Prosecutions are unlawful and are intended to frustrate   the control of the public of criminal proceedings   and the administration of justice in Kenyan courts.

12. That it is an abuse of court process to purport to charge the applicant   with a criminal  offence  4 years  after the conclusion of investigations.  That therefore the respondents   are acting    irrationally and without regard  to applicable  principles.

13. The  applicant  annexed to the verifying  affidavit  a copy of  a statement  recorded  on 9th November  2012  by  Stanley Kihiko on behalf of MR PUTHUCODE KRISCHNAIYER  SESHADRI and MRS PREMA SESHADRI  regarding  property No.LR No. Nairobi/ Block 94/66- NYARI ESTATE, NAIROBI.

14. The respondents  filed replying  affidavit sworn by No. 67487 PC Thomas  Kareithi on 20th  December 2016  deposing  that he is  the investigating  officer attached  to the CID Headquarters Land Fraud Unit and conversant with this matter and the  circumstances  surrounding   the whole  matter.

15. The deponent denies the depositions  of the applicant  and  questions  how  the applicant  came into possession  of the complainant’s  letter written  by Mr Stanley  Kihiko  Advocate, since  he, the  applicant  is not a suspect  in  criminal case No. 6162/2012  at Kibera  Law Courts.

16. The investigating  officer maintains that  all the allegations   made by the   applicant  are untrue  since the  police  have not  treated the applicant as a suspect  or a witness  in the  ongoing  criminal  case in Kibera Law Courts.

17. That the applicant has not demonstrated how his rights have been infringed. That the  Director  of Public Prosecutions is   empowered under   Article  157  of the Constitution  to institute, undertake, take  over, continue  and or  terminate  criminal  proceedings  amongst  other  duties, in accordance   with the principles  laid out  in the Constitution  hence  the court should  exercise caution and  care not to interfere with the  constitutional powers of the   respondents  to investigate  and  subsequently  institute and undertake  criminal proceedings  and should only   interfere  with the independent  judgment   of the respondents if it is  shown that the exercise  of his powers  is contrary to the  Constitution, is in  bad   faith  or amounts to an abuse  of process.

18. That the applicant’s  averments  are trumped  up, misconceived, unfounded, unmeritorious and baseless.  That the  applicant  has not demonstrated that the respondents have not acted  independently or acted  capriciously, in bad faith  or has  abused  the legal  process  in a manner  to trigger the High Court’s  intervention  hence the motion should be  dismissed  entirely.

19. The parties’ advocates filed  and  exchanged written  submissions which  they wholly  adopted and  urged the court  to adopt  the same  and  which submissions  the court did  adopt  as filed.

20. In Mr  Mariaria’s  submissions  filed  on  21st November  2016, on behalf of the exparte applicant,  counsel reiterated  the grounds  and depositions  of his client  as per the statutory  statement  and  verifying  affidavit   while maintaining  that the respondent’s   conduct   and  actions  are malafides  in deciding   to charge the applicant with a criminal offence yet no  complaint  has been raised  against   the applicant  and that the  respondents have  flouted  the procedures   for charging  accused  persons.  He relied on Joram Mwenda v The Chief Magistrate, Nairobi Appeal No. 228/2003 [2007] 2 EA 170 where the Court of  Appeal held that  prohibition would issue where there is  evidence of oppression, abuse of court process and  is vexatious.

21. Further reliance  was placed on  Mexner & Another  v The Attorney General [2005] 2 KLR 189 where the Court of Appeal  held, inter alia, that  prohibition restrains abuse of  excess  of power.

22. Further reliance   was placed  on Kuria  & 3 Others v Attorney General [2002]  2 KLR 69 where  the court held that  it has  power and duty to prohibit continuation of the criminal prosecution  if extraneous  matters  divorced  from the  goals  of justice  guide  the investigations  and that  the duty  of the court is  to ensure its process does not  degenerate  into tools  for personal  score- settling or vilification of issues not pertaining  to that  which the  system  was even  formed  to perform; where  the prosecution violates fundamental principles  of justice  which underline  the  society’s  senses  of fair play  and  decency and or where  the  proceedings  are oppressive  or vexatious.

23. It  was also  submitted that the  intended  criminal  prosecution of the applicant  has no  factual foundation  and that  the respondents   have not demonstrated that they have a reasonable and  probable  cause for mounting a criminal  prosecution against  the applicant  hence they are malicious and unreasonable.  Reliance was placed on Republic vs Attorney General Exparte Kipngeno Arap Ngeng HC Miscellaneous 406/2001.

24. Further, counsel submitted that the discretion given to the Director of Public Prosecutions under Article 157  of the Constitution and  Section  4  of the office of the Director of Public Prosecutions Act  No. 2  of  2013  is not absolute  and  must  be exercised  within certain  laid down  standards  set by the  Constitution and the Office of Director of Public Prosecutions Act.

25. That it  is an  abhorrent  affront  to the judicial conscience  and   the Constitution  to argue that the  court cannot  question the discretion given  to the Director of Public Prosecutions to prefer  charges  against  the applicant.  Reliance was placed on Nakusa  V Torora  & 2  Others   No. 2  Nairobi  HCC 4/2003[2008] 2 KLR  565  and  Koinange  V Attorney General &  Others [2007] EA  256; Republic  vs  Minister  for Home  Affairs  & Others  Exparte  Sitamze  Nairobi  HCC  1652/2004.

26. On what orders to make, reliance was place on Nancy  Makokha Baraza JSC & Others [2012] e KLR; Communications  Commission   of Kenya V  Royal Media  Services [2014] e KLR; Martin Nyaga Wambora  v Speaker  of the Senate [2014]  e KLR  and  Nairobi HCC 1729/2001 Thomas  Mboya Oluoch & Another  v Lucy Muthoni  Stephen & Another.

27. According to the applicant’s counsel, the intended charges are actuated by ulterior motives and not to achieve the purposes of criminal justice hence the motion as filed should be allowed.

28. In opposition to the motion and  the submissions  filed by the applicant, the respondent filed submissions on 19th January  2017  relying  wholly on their  replying  affidavit,  case law  and  legal and  constitutional  provisions.

29. According to the respondents, the applicant has failed to discharge his burden of proving that the respondents have discharged their mandates contrary to the Constitution.

30. That it is the mandate of the police, as stipulated in Article 245 of the Constitution, to investigate complaints which they have done in accordance with the law. Reliance was placed onCape Holdings Ltd v Attorney General & Another [2012] e KLR.

31. It  was submitted that this application  is an abuse of the court  process  as similar  application  was filed  vide JR  130/2013  Republic v Inspector General  & another  seeking  similar  orders  in respect of  several land  transactions including  the  land subject   of this case  but that  the court declined  to grant him  the orders  sought.

32. It was also submitted that the applicant had not demonstrated that there is any decision to arrest  or charge  him with  any  criminal offence  and that  a decision  to prosecute   him can only be made by the Director  of Public  of Prosecutions, which  decision  has not been  made.

33. Further, that there is no evidence that a police officer ever called him and asked him to appear in court.   That prohibition  is not  available  to the applicant  as there  is  no evidence   of  abuse of power  and  that the court  should be  cautious  not to interfere  with constitutional mandates  of constitutional offices.

34. That there is no evidence of how the respondents have breached then public duty.  Reliance was placed on Kuria & 3 Others vs Attorney General(supra).

35. On  the duty  of police to  investigate  any complaint, the case  of Michael  Monari  & Another  V The Commissioner  of Police  & 3 Others Miscellaneous  Application  68/2011  was cited.

36. Further reliance  was placed  on Michael  Sistu Mwaura  Kamau  & 12 Others   vs  EACC & 4  Others [2016]  e KLR; Director of Public Prosecution V Humphrey  [1976] 2 ALL ER  497  at  511; Republic  vs Attorney General  & 4  Others  exparte  Kenneth Kariuki Gathii [2014] e KLR;  and  George  Joshua  Okungu  & Another  vs Chief  Magistrate’s  Court Anti Corruption  Court  at Nairobi & Another  Petition  227  & 230  of  2009.  It was submitted that these proceedings   are an   abuse of the court process hence they should be dismissed with costs.

Determination

37. I have considered the exparte applicant’s notice of motion and all the supporting documents. I have also considered the respondent’s response to the application. I have  given  equal consideration  to the parties’ advocates written  submissions  which  were  adopted by the court  to canvass the  motion. In my humble view, the issue for determination is whether the prayers of certiorari and prohibition are available to the applicant.

38. First and foremost, the court notes that the applicant has in his notice of motion duplicated the two Judicial Review prayers. The chamber summons  for leave only sought, and the court   only granted  leave to the  applicant  to apply  for  two Judicial Review Orders of certiorari  and  prohibition  in terms of prayers b and  c of the chamber summons  dated  17th  October 2016.

39. It therefore follows that this court can only consider the merits of the substantive motion as per the order of leave. Accordingly, I would  only consider   the merits of prayers  No. a and  b of the notice of motion  which are  a  reproduction  of the prayers  b and  c  in the chamber summons for leave, and  ignore prayers  c  and  d   of the notice of motion  albeit they substantially and  materially  are a duplicate of  the first  two prayers.

40. Behind the whole saga, appears to be the ‘sale’ of land   Reference  No.LR  Nairobi/Block 94/66 which  the  applicant  claims he was never involved in and neither  have  the  respondents  claimed in their reply  to these  proceedings, that he  is a  suspect nor a  witness  in any criminal  case relating  to that ‘transaction’ which  appears  to  have been fraudulent,  as shown  by the statement  of  Mr Stanley  Kihiko Advocate  annexed.  It is this  statement   which  the  applicant  says   he  was  shown  on  being  summoned  to  the  CID Headquarters  in  October 2012 and  told that unless  he produces  the  fraudulent  vendor of the land  in question, he would be charged  in court  and  his case  consolidated with  criminal case  No.6161/2012  against   Mr Thomas  Maosa  Advocate and  another.

41. The applicant denies   knowing the   complainants in that case and or even dealing with them in any matter.

42. The  respondents  wonder how  the  applicant  got the letter of complaint  but  maintain  that he  is  neither a  witness  nor a suspect  in the  criminal  case.

43. However, the  applicant  maintains that  he  is  being intimidated and  harassed by the police  who intend  to charge  him with  the offence of obtaining money by false pretences, and  consolidating  his  case  with  criminal 6161/2012  Republic vs Thomas  Maosa & another.

44. However, no charge  sheet  was produced  in court  to show that  indeed   the  applicant  was  intended  to be  charged  with the  said offence. The  respondents also raised in their submissions  the  issue of  the  application  being an  abuse  of  process because  the  applicant filed  similar proceedings  which   were  dismissed by the  court. That matter was never raised in the replying affidavit or even in the grounds of opposition filed in    response to the prayers for leave.  Neither  was the  decision  in  JR  130/2013 Republic vs  Inspector  General  of  Police  & Another availed  to the  court  for perusal and  consideration. I have however  taken judicial notice of  decisions  of the  High Court   which are  reported by  The National Council for Law Reporting  noting  that  the  applicant  had  an  opportunity  to respond to that  issue but chose  not  to respond thereto and  simply  adopted his written  submissions.  I have searched on Kenyalaw.org and found JR 130/2013 Republic vs Inspector General of Police & Another Exparte Patrick Macharia Nderitu.  The applicant  therein vide  a notice of  motion  dated  13th  May 2013  had  sought  for  Judicial Review orders of  prohibition  to  prohibit  the respondents  Inspector  General  of Police  and   the Director of  Criminal Investigations Department from harassing, threatening, charging  and  arresting  him in relation to land  sale transactions involving  plots Nos  LR  No.12565/22  94/66 and   206/6903  situated in Nairobi.  He claimed that  the respondents had questioned him  and harassed  him  severally  over land  transactions that he was  unaware  of, urging  him to  produce  the  unnamed  person  who had been  in his company who is involved in the alleged fraudulent  transactions.

45. In that  JR   130/2013,  the scenario described by the judge in the  facts of  that  case, is similar to  the circumstances leading  to the  complaint in  criminal  case No.6161/2012   as per the  statement of Stanley Kihiko annexed to the applicant’s  verifying  affidavit herein   save that  in  that case, the money which was deposited with Thomas Maosa Advocate was withdrawn by Jane  Kemunto  the  advocate’s wife and  handed  over  in cash   to the  applicant  herein   and  in JR  130/2013 for onward  handing  over to the  vendors.  The  decision  in  JR   130/2013 also revealed that the applicant herein  had  previously  sought  similar orders in JR  424/2012  which   was withdrawn  on  2nd  May  2013  by  advocates. I will revert to that matter latter.

46. As correctly  discussed by Honourable Justice  Odunga J  in  JR   130/2013,  in order for  an  application  for judicial review   to succeed,   the  applicant  has  to show  that  the  decision  or  act  complained  of  is tainted  with  illegality, irrationality or procedural  impropriety. Illegality  is when  the decision  making  authority  commits an  error of law in the  process   of taking   or making  the  act,  the  subject   of   the  complaint.

47. Acting without jurisdiction or ultra vires, or contrary to the provisions of a law or its principles are instances of illegality.  Irrationality  is where there is  such  gross unreasonableness  in the  decision  taken  or  act  done, that no reasonable authority   addressing   itself  to the  facts before it,  would   have  made such  a decision.  Such a decision is usually in defiance   of logic and acceptable moral standard. Procedural  impropriety  is  where there  is  failure to act fairly  on the part  of the  decision  making  authority  in  the  process  of  taking  a  decision.

48. The unfairness  may be  in  non  observance  of the Rules of natural justice  or to act   with  procedural fairness   towards one  to be  affected by  the  decision. It may also  involve failure to adhere  and  observe procedural rules expressly laid down  in  a statute   or legislative  instrument   by which  such  authority  exercises jurisdiction to  make  a  decision.

49. The  above position  and  principles  were  espoused  in several  decisions among  them  Pastoli v Kabale District  Local Government  Council & Others[2008] 2 EA 300,Council of Civil Unions V Minister Civil Service [1985]AC.2and Re Bukoba Gymkhana Club  [1963]EA 478.

50. The applicant is seeking to remove into this court the  proceedings before the Director of Criminal Investigations  regarding the land fraud for purposes of quashing the  proceedings  and  the intended  charge sheet  and  prohibiting  the  respondents  from  presenting  a charge sheet against him, charging  him  with a criminal charge   relating  to LR No. Nairobi/Block 94/66 or consolidating the charge sheet with criminal case No.  6161/2012  at  Kibera  Chief  Magistrate’s Court   or bring  any  charges  against  him, arising  from the  same   transaction as the  current  case.

51. The complainants in criminal 6161/2012 are not parties to this case but were parties to JR130/2012.  The respondents herein admit that there are investigations regarding the land transaction involving   fraud but deny that   they have made   any decision  to charge  the  applicant  or even  make  him  a  witness  in the pending  criminal case at Kibera.

52. In essence, the  applicant seeks to quash  the  decision  allegedly  made by  the  respondents to charge  him  before  Kibera Court   and   to   consolidate his case  with   cr.6161/2012  on obtaining  money by false pretences. Kibera Court is within the jurisdiction of this court. This court  was not shown  any  charge  sheet, whether  charging  the applicant  alone  or jointly with  others related to the fraudulent land transaction herein  presented. If there was any such decision, it would also be manifested in the form of summons to appear in court or a charge sheet.

53. In the absence of such summons or charge sheet,  this court cannot assume that there is any decision made to charge the applicant with any criminal offence.  This is not to say  that  the  applicant  may  not have  been summoned  by the police  on  phone  to shed light  on the  matter, as demonstrated  by  the  evidence   in  JR  130/2012 which  the  applicant  deliberately  failed to  disclose before this  court, but  that there  is  no evidence  before this court   to show that  any  decision  has been  made to charge  him with  any  criminal offence. It is no longer secretive for the police to charge a suspect. Furthermore, they would, if they  so wished  to charge  him with  an  offence  related to  criminal 6161/2012,  even  obtain  summons  or a warrant  of  arrest  against him  and they  would  not require his consent  or  permission  to charge  him.

54. It  requires no citation  in these proceedings  that the  police  have the power to investigate crimes, enforce the  law, apprehend offenders ,prevent  and  detect crime, collect criminal  intelligence  among  other  duties  assigned  by  the  National  Police Service Act No. 11A  of 2011,Section 24 thereof.

55. There is no statutory time limitation within which the police should investigate and or charge someone with commission of a crime, noting that some crimes are committed in a very complex manner   and   detection or evidence gathering takes time.

56. As the criminal caseNo.6161/2012 is still pending in court, it cannot be said that inquiry or investigation to nab all possible suspects is closed. As  correctly  by Honourable Odunga J  in Republic Vs   Chief  Magistrate Milimani  & Another  ExparteTusker Matresses Ltd  &  3 Others [2013] e KLR,

“the  court must in  such  circumstances  take  care not to trespass into  the  jurisdiction   of the  investigators or the court  which may  eventually  be called upon  to determine the  issues   hence  the  court ought  not make  determination  which may  affect investigations  or the  yet  to be conducted  trial.   That this court has power   to quash impugned warrants cannot be doubted. However,  it is  upon  the  exparte applicant to satisfy the  court  that  the  discretion  given  to the  police  to investigate allegations  of  commission  of  a criminal offence ought  to be  interfered with. It is  not enough to simply  inform   the  court  that  the  intended  trial is  bound  to fail  or  that  the  complaints constitute both  criminal offence  as well as  civil liability. The High Court ought not to  interfere with  the  investigate powers conferred upon  the  police  or  Director of Public  Prosecution  unless cogent  reasons  are  given  for doing  so. The warrants were issued to enable the allegations be investigated. Whether  or  not the  investigations  will unearth  material which  will be a  basic upon  which  a  decision  will be made to commence a prosecution  of the  exparte applicants   or any  of  them  is  a matter   which  is  premature at this stage  to dwell on.”

57. The applicant annexed copy of a statement written to the Criminal Investigation Division by Mr Stanley Kihiko advocate. That statement does not mention   the applicant herein   as being culpable. However, not all  witness  statements   were  annexed   and or  the statements of the suspects in  criminal  6161/2012 annexed. On the  other hand, in JR 130/2013 it  emerged that Jane  Kemunto  the  wife   to Thomas Maosa, one of the  accused  persons  in  criminal  6161/2012   and  who  is named  in the statement of  Stanley  Kihiko  as the  mastermind   of  the  alleged  fraud, alleged  that  she  withdrew  all the money    deposited in  her  husband’s  bank   account  and   paid it   to the  applicant herein.  This is not  to say that   there is  overwhelming   evidence that the  applicant  received proceeds of the purported fraudulent sale which  turned out  to be  fraudulent  transactions, but  that  the  applicant  herein, is  prima  facie, not a  hoax as the applicant wished   this  court  to believe.

58. Moreso, the applicant’s conduct of refusing   to disclose the existence of JR 130/2013 is suspect. This court also doubts that the police investigating a crime would give him a statement of a potential witness when he himself in neither a witness nor a suspect in a criminal case pending in court. The applicant did not state which police officer by name who gave him that statement of a witness in the criminal case. Judicial Review orders are discretionary  in  nature and  a party’s  conduct  in the  proceedings  go along   way to  influence  the  judge’s  exercise of  discretion. Non  disclosure  of  material facts  is one  of the  factors  that the  court  would  take  into account  in  deciding  whether  or not  to grant  the  Judicial Review  orders sought.

59. The court  notes  that  colossal sums of money  were  allegedly lost   both  in  criminal  6161/2012   and  as   disclosed in  JR 130/2013,  and  that  detecting   certain  crimes  like  fraud  is  complex  and  can  take longer  than  anticipated  due  to  long  webs  and  the secrecy  involved.   It is  for that  reason  that  Odunga  J  in  JR   130/2013   held  that if   any  investigations  are  required   in  which  the  applicant  is  required  to  furnish   information  let  the  respondents  do so with dignity  and in strict   adherence   to the  due  process  and the  rule  of law.  The  court  also noted that  the  charges  facing  the  applicant  were  withdrawn  by the  respondents  as  a  result  of the  said  Judicial Review   proceedings.

60. This  court  agrees   with the  applicant  that  the respondents   ought not to subject the applicant to intimidation and  harassment  and  that  if they   have evidence   to charge   him  with   any  offence,  they ought   to do so  with  dignity   and  in the manner provided for in Article 50 of the Constitution. However,  the  applicant’s application  fell  short  of  proving   that  he  was  being harassed or intimidated  by the   respondents   or  that  he   was  being  asked  to  produce  the  fraudster  in the subject land  transaction.

61. If there   was  any  telephone  calls  made  to him, then   in  this   digital world, he  ought   to have  sought for  or extracted the numbers  and  availed  them to  the court. It is not sufficient   to allege that he was being harassed and or intimidated by the police. Since the mode of alleged harassment and or intimidation  was  disclosed  as being through phone  calls, it   was  important  for the applicant  to avail   to the court  evidence  of the calls made to him to show how  he  was  being  harassed  without  being  charged  in  court. He did not.

62. Further, it is not  sufficient   to  say  that the  Director  of Public Prosecutions   has  made a  decision  to charge   the  applicant   and  or  consolidate  his case with criminal 6161/2012. The Director of Public Prosecutions makes a decision   to charge   through drawing of a charge sheet.  No such charge sheet  was produced. It  cannot, therefore  be concluded that  there is  abuse  of any power or process  or that  there is  a  unreasonable or an  irrational  decision  taken  by  the  respondents.  It   was not shown  as  to what powers  were being usurped in  the  circumstances   of this  case  and  therefore   no  illegality   or impropriety  on the part  of the  respondents was  demonstrated by the applicant.

63. Indeed,  it  would not be  appropriate  to  compel  the  applicant   to produce   the  alleged vendor in the alleged  fraudulent  land  transaction  in the  absence  of  evidence that the applicant  knew  or had  such  person in his custody. However,  there was  no evidence  in the present   case  to  show  that  the  applicant   was  being  forced to produce  the  said vendors, unlike  in the JR  130/2012  where  the applicant   had  even   been charged  in court, which  charge  was withdrawn.

64. Furthermore, the Honourable Odunga J  in JR 130/2013   having declined to issue Judicial  Review  order  of  prohibition  against the respondents, prohibiting  them from arresting   and  charging    the  applicant   with  offences   relating  to land sale  transactions  involving  plot  Nos LR  No.12565/22,94/66 and 209/6903,  and  the court having   found that  the  respondent’s   putting  pressure   on the applicant   to produce   the person  believed to have defrauded the  interested  party  in that case  was irrational, which  decision  was made  on 9thMarch  2015, it was  not  open to the  applicant, having  in his  possession  an order of this court  prohibiting  the  respondents from subjecting  the applicant to acts of harassment, to  return to the  same  court  seeking  for   the  same  orders, using   different  terms.

65. What  was  available  to the  applicant, in the  circumstances of   this case,   was  to file an  application  in the  same JR  130/2015 seeking to enforce orders   of  9th  March   2013. If those   orders were being violated, the remedy is institution of contempt  proceedings and not certiorari or prohibition since the   circumstances   have not   changed.

66. It is for the above last reason that I find this application an abuse   of court process. I say so because prayer No (a) of the notice of motion is couched   in the manner  of prohibition and not certiorari.  The Criminal Investigation Department do not   conduct proceedings   and no such proceedings were demonstrated. They make   decisions   to investigate, arrest   and charge the suspects, jointly with the Director of Public Prosecutions. An  intended   charge  sheet   is not a proceeding  capable  of being  quashed.  It  can  only be   prohibited. And  as  there  was  no  such charge  sheet for presentation to court then there  was  nothing to be   prohibited.

67. Accordingly,  it is my  humble view  that the  two main   prayers  sought  by the  applicant were  in all material particulars   the  same   as  the prayers   sought  in JR   130/2013  which sought  to prohibit  the  arrest, charging  of the applicant   with offences  related  to the  alleged  fraudulent  land  transactions and  which  prayer  Odunga  J  declined  to issue.

68. The applicant  did not appeal against  that  order. It is therefore  vexatious  of him to  reappear   in court   with similar  prayers. In the  end, I find that   the  applicant’s  notice of motion  dated  24th  October  2016  is not merited and  I decline  to  grant all  the  prayers   sought.   The same is dismissed.

69. Having found that  the applicant  is  vexatious  and  as it  appears  he did  not notify  his present  advocates on record   of the proceedings   and  orders  in JR  130/2013,   I order that  the applicant   bears  costs of  these   Judicial Review  proceedings.

Dated, signed and delivered in open court at Nairobi this 22nd day of February 2017.

R.E. ABURILI

JUDGE