Republic v Chief Magistrate’s Court at Kibera & Director of Public Prosecutions Exparte Jacklin Waithera [2016] KEHC 236 (KLR)

REPUBLIC OF KENYA

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA

AT NAIROBI

JUDICIAL REVIEW

MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION NO.  88 OF 2015

IN THE MATER OF AN APPLICATION FOR  JUDICIAL  REVIEW  UNDER  SECTION 8  OF THE LAW  REFORM  ACT CHAPTER  26 LAWS  OF  KENYA  AND  ORDER  53  OF THE  CIVIL PROCEDURE RULES, 2010.

AND

IN THE MATTER OF CRIMINAL CASE NO.4512 OF 2013 (KIBERA) BETWEEN   REPUBLIC -VS- JACKLINE WAITHERA

BETWEEN

REPUBLIC …………………………………………….............APPLICANT

VERSUS

THE CHIEF MAGISTRATE’S COURT AT KIBERA......1ST RESPONDENT

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

JACKLIN WAITHERA....................................................................EXPARTE

JUDGMENT

1. By notice of motion dated 27th March 2015 theexparte  applicant  Jackline  Waithera  seeks  from this  court orders:

1. That  an order  of prohibition  be issued  by the court  directed  against  the Chief Magistrate’s  court  Kibera  from  proceeding, conducting  the trial, presiding  or in any manner   dealing with the  charges laid or proceedings  in criminal case No. 4512 of 2014   between Republic   V Jackline  Waithera, the exparte  applicant.

2. That an order of certiorari be issued by  the court removing into  the High Court and quashing  the decision  made by  the Director of Public Prosecutions in preferring  and or  directing  the prosecution of Jackline  Waithera the exparte  applicant  in the Chief Magistrate’s Court Kibera  in criminal case No. 4512   of 2014  between the Republic   Vs  Jackline  Waithera.

2. The application is based on the grounds  as set out  in the statement   of facts  of the application  for leave to apply dated  25th March  2015 and the exparte applicant’s  verifying  affidavit  filed in court on 25th March 2015 sworn by the exparte  applicant.

3. Leave  institute  these Judicial Review  proceedings was granted by Honourable  Odunga J  on 25th March  2015 wherein  the learned judge  also ordered  that the leave  so granted  shall operate  as stay of  prosecution of  the exparte  applicant  until  the hearing and determination of the Judicial Review  proceedings.

4. The  exparte  applicant’s case  is that she   was  employed by an NGO called Joy Vision For Youth and Children International (Joytharc) on  21st July  2014  and  was confirmed  on 27th October  2014, earning  a basic salary  of shs  100,000 as a communications   manager   in the said NGO.

5. That the daily business   of the said   NGO were conducted  by the directors  of the organization.

6. That on 30th October  2014   while the exparte  applicant  was engaged  upon her duties,  the police officers   went to her  and inquired  from her the whereabouts  of the  Directors  of the said NGO, and   who they were.

7. That the  applicant    told the police  officers  that the Directors  who are  Samuel  Mburu Njenga, Mutura  Isaiah Kirewa and  Irene  Makena   were attending  a meeting  and that  they would return  at 2. 00pm.

8. That the police  officers  commanded  the  exparte  applicant  to accompany  them to the  Nairobi  Area  Police Station where they  booked her in the OB and held her in  custody   charging  her  with the offence  of obtaining  goods  by false pretences contrary to  Section  313  of the penal code.

9. That  when she  asked to  be given  copies of documents the prosecution  were  relying  on, among  the documents  was  a search  conducted at the  NGO Coordination  Board showing  the directors of the Joytharc  as the ones she  had given  to the police.

10. That although she  was facing  charges  related  to obtaining  goods by  false  pretences, she   was only but an employee of the NGO  and not  even a  signatory to any  bank account.

11. That she  was also  not a signatory  to any of the agreements   for supply of goods/material to the Joytharc by the complainants   in the criminal case.

12. That she   complained to the CID  Headquarters who  promised to investigate  further into the matter.

13. The applicant is concerned that the Directors of Joytharc have not been charged in court which she considers selective and discriminatory and in violation of the principles under Article 159 of the Constitution.  She also claims that her rights  under Article 50(2)  of the Constitution  had been violated  as a result of the negative  publicity that  the case  had been  accorded.

14. The applicant   also complains  that the  2nd respondent  Director of Public Prosecutions  has violated  Article  27 (1)  of the Constitution by treating  her differently  from the Directors  of Joytharc  which  treatment  amounts  to discrimination  and that therefore  her prosecution  is meant to  partially  satisfy  the complainants  to get  justice  while  shielding  the real suspects and beneficiaries   of the alleged offences  which, in her view  will not  give the  complainants  any justice  which is a   traversity   of justice  and  an abuse of the entire  process.

15. The 2nd  respondent opposed the notice of  motion  and  filed replying affidavit   on 30th October  2015   sworn by IP David  Ochieng No.235115 attached to the CID special crime  prevention  officer in the  matter.

16. The Inspector of Police deposes that on  6th August   2016  one Hezborn  Omondi  through the Cinative Enterprises Company Limited entered into an agreement  for supply of  goods to Joytharc  NGO upon being introduced  to the  said NGO  by the applicant    herein  but that later  the goods  were  not  paid for hence he reported to the  CID for  investigations and that investigations revealed that the  said NGO  did not   exist  as per the NGOs  Coordination Board  letter dated  18th November 2014   showing that the organization  was not  registered.

17. That the applicant   herein is part of  an intricate  web  of people who are  out to defraud  innocent   people  using   the name or the organization  that is  Joytharc International and that the other persons   involved had been charged in  Milimani Criminal court  for the offence  of obtaining  and  forgery.

18. The 2nd respondent  also contends that  the letter of employment by the applicant   is a forgery and is not  signed, and contains  a stamp of  an organization Joy Vision for the Youth and Children International which  was  a registered entity but subsequently  closed, as shown  by letter dated  2nd December  2014   from the NGO’s  Coordination  Board.

19. According to the  2nd respondent, they  are still searching  for the   officials  of the  NGO to shed light  on whether  they are aware of the various fraudulent  activities.

20. That more charges  against the  applicant  were forthcoming  and a consolidation of the criminal case facing  the applicant  and other accused persons  who were already  facing  criminal  trials.

21. In the 2nd  respondent’s view the applicant had  not demonstrated any actual or threatened contravention of her constitutional rights by the respondent’s instituting criminal proceedings against her.  That  the offences  she is   charged  with are  known  in law and the prosecution  has sufficient  evidence to sustain the  respective  charges.

22. Further, that issues  meant  to vindicate  the applicants   should  be canvassed  in the criminal court  and   fairly determined, and not in the  Judicial Review  court.

23. In addition, it is contended by the 2nd respondent that the Judicial Review  proceedings  are frivolous  and an abuse of the court process  and  meant to  circumvent  the criminal justice  process.

24. Further,  that the  police  did not act illegally or contravene any Code of Regulations, and  neither   did they act under the control  or direction of any party: but that they were independently  discharging  their duties  after conducting thorough investigations as mandated by Article 244 of  the Constitution and the National  Police Service Act, Sections 24 and  25  inter alia- to  investigate  crimes  and  apprehend offenders.

25. The  2nd respondent also  contends  that this  application is  based  on  deliberate concealment  of, distortion  and non  disclosure  of material  facts  leading  to the subject  criminal  complaint, investigations  and charges.  And   that it is in the interest  of  justice  that the court  should allow  the trial  court to proceed  with the  Kibera Criminal case No, 4512 of  2014   to its  logical conclusion.

26. Both parties’ counsels filed written submissions which they submitted on by way of oral highlights. The  exparte  applicant’s  submission  were filed   on  28th  May 2015.  They are dated 26th May 2015, and supported  by a list  of   authorities filed on the same day whereas the 2nd  respondent’s  submissions  supported by authorities  are dated  30th November  2015.

27. According  to the exparte  applicant, no reason has ever been   given  as to  why the  exparte applicant   was charged and yet the likely  beneficiaries  of the  complaint   were left   out and  or have not  been arrested  or charged.

28. Reliance   was placed on George  Joshua  Okungu  & Another  Vs Chief Magistrate’s court  (ACC) Nairobi  & Another  [2014]  e KLR  where the court  held:

“ the law is that  the court ought  not to usurp the Constitutional mandate  of the Directors  of Public Prosecutions of the authority charged with the prosecution of criminal  offences to investigate  and  undertake prosecution in the exercise of the discretion   conferred  upon that office.  The mere fact that  the intended  ongoing  criminal proceeding are   in all  likelihood bound to fail it has been  held  time  and  again , is not a ground that ought not  to be relied on by the court  to halt criminal  process  undertaken  bonafide  since the defence  is always  open to the  petitioner in those   proceedings.

However, if the   petitioner  demonstrates  that  the intended  or ongoing criminal proceedings constitute  an abuse of the process  and  are being  carried out   in breach of or threatened  breach of  the petitioner’s constitutional  rights, the court will not   hesitate  in putting  a halt so such  proceedings.”

29. Further reliance was placed  on Republic Vs  Attorney General Exparte Kipngeno Arab Ngeny, HCC Civil Application  406  of  2001  where it  was held that:

“ A criminal prosecution which is  commenced  in the absence of proper  factual foundation or  basis is  always suspect for ulterior  motive or improper purpose.  Before  instituting   criminal proceedings, there  must be  in existence   material  evidence  on which  the prosecution  can say with  certainty that they  have a  prosecutable  case.  A prudent  and cautious  prosecutor must be able to  demonstrate  that he has  a reasonable  and   probable  cause for  mounting  a criminal  prosecution  otherwise   the prosecution will be  malicious  and actionable.”

30. In this  case, the exparte  applicant  maintained  that she  was charged  maliciously and  in a discriminatory  manner.  That  although  the 2nd  respondent   charged her  as  the owner  of the NGO, the evidence  per the search  clearly  shower that  she  was an employee  of the NGO  and   that she  had annexed  copy of a signed   employment   letter to her  supplementary  affidavit.  That the  letter of  the NGO Coordination  Board  gives  the names of  officials  and that the  applicant is  not one of them yet the  Director of Public Prosecutions  never looked  for or arrested  or charged  the said  officials  of the NGO.

31. That  the agreements for supply of  goods  was  between the complainants  and officials  of Joytharc  International  hence her  prosecution is malicious   and  discriminatory.

32. That the  Director of Criminal  Investigations Department in the letter  dated  8th January  2015 clearly  questioned  why the applicant  was charged in court yet  she  was not a bonafide  official  of the NGO  but that  the 2nd  respondents  have never  acted upon the  said letter which clearly  shows that  the Director of Public Prosecutions and the investigating officer are protecting  people who benefited  from the loot.

33. The applicant denied  ever meeting the  complainant   and convincing him to supply goods to the NGO since the complainant  in his statement  says he  was  introduced  by Francis  Otieno  Okungu  to the NGO and that  the contract  for  supply to the NGO  was signed by the said  Francis  Otieno and not the  complainant herein.

34. It  was further submitted that Joytharc  International  is an acronym for Joy Vision for Youth and Children  International hence the search  for  particulars  of Joytharc with the  NGO Board  could not  show the  registered NGO since the NGO   was registered  in the full names.

35. It was submitted that the 2nd respondent   abused his discretion to charge employees of Joytharc instead of the NGO.

36. Relying on Kuria  & 3 Others V Attorney General [2002] 2  KLR  69  the applicant submitted  that the  prosecution  have shielded  the real beneficiaries  of the offence  and that the  court  should be guided by the  principles set out in the George  Joshua Okungu & Another caseon the situation that the court  is empowered to interfere  with exercise  of discretion.

37. It   was  submitted that based  on the case  of Isaac  Gathungu Wanjohi  &Another  Vs Director  of  City Planning, CCN & Another   [2014] e KLR, where the court   discusses   unreasonable  and irrationality, and that it had  been demonstrated  that  the trial of the applicant is  irrational, illegal  and laced  with procedural  impropriety.

38. Reliance was also placed on Judicial Review  471/2013 Josephine Akoth Onyango & Another Vs Director of Public Prosecutions &Others   where Majanja J held that the Director of Public Prosecutions was abusing legal process and his powers.

39. Further reliance was place on Pastoli Vs Kabale District  Local Government  Council  & Others [2008] 2 EA 300  on the Scope of Judicial Review;  and Joram Mwenda Guantai V The  Chief Magistrate’s Court Nairobi CA 228/2003 on the jurisdiction  of the High Court  to grant an order  of prohibition  to a person charged  before a subordinate  court and  considers   himself to be a  victim of  oppression.

40. The applicant  also  relied  on Stanley Munga  Githunguri Vs  Republic [1985] KLR  91 where the court held that  if a prosecution amounts  to an abuse of  the process of the court  and that  the High Court  has  inherent  power  and duty to secure  fair  treatment  for all persons  who are brought  before the  court or  subordinate  court to  prevent  abuse of  the court process.

41. In  the  2nd respondent’s  submissions  filed on  30th November   2015, it  was  contended  that the applicant   was correctly  charged  as she belongs  to the Joytharc Organization which is  fictitious  and that the name  of the  organization  has been  used  to defraud  people   of supplies.

42. It  was submitted that an order  of prohibition is  discretionary and is  only  tenable where  a public  body  or official  acted  in excess  of their  powers  and as  such the  order  requires  the public  body  to cease  from performing a certain act.

43. Reliance was placed on HC Miscellaneous Application 179/2012 Republic vs Chief Magistrate’s Court Milimani  & 2 Others  Exparte  Tusker Mattress  Ltd  where it  was 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.

44. Further reliance was place on KNEC Vs Republic Exparte Geoffrey Gathenji Njoroge & 9 Others which articulates on when an order of prohibition is to issue.  It was   submitted that it is not the obligation of the court to supervise how investigations are conducted so long as they are not in contravention of any law.

45. That in this case, the applicant  has not  demonstrated  an illegality, irrationality or procedural impropriety  of the  decision by the respondent  to  justify intervention by the court.

46. That the  applicant  has been  charged  with offences  which are known   in law and  the criminal  proceedings will be  conducted  within the ambit  of the law  as safeguarded   by the constitution.

47. That  the NGO  was  deregistered  on   30th April  2014  and  yet the  letter of  employment  is dated October  2014 yet offences  were committed  in August  2014.  Further, that James   Mwangi has also been charged hence there  is no discrimination.

48. That it  is the Director  of Public Prosecutions  who decides  who  to charge  based  on the evidence  gathered  in investigations.  Further, that  is it  the trial  court to decide  the veracity  of the charge  sheet  and the  Director  of Public Prosecutions   can amend  the charge sheet  hence  there  was no abuse of process or  procedural  irregularity.

49. It  was also  submitted  that an order  of prohibition  is untenable  as crimes are  being committed  and that  neither  is certiorari orders available as there is no  unconstitutionality  or breach  of natural  justice.

50. It was submitted that  the applicant  herein  used a  questionable   employment  letter to induce  unsuspecting   suppliers  who lost  millions of shillings.

51. Reliance was placed on KNEC V Republic (supra) on when an order of certiorari will issue.

52. On the whole it  was submitted that this  application is an abuse of  the  court process  hence it  should be  dismissed.

53. In a rejoinder Mr Moindi counsel for the applicant maintained that the people charged   in court are employees of the organization and that in the petition before Onguto J, the petitioner is an employee.  That employees   would not know whether the NGO was deregistered.  Further, that matters of  finance  are handled  by officials  of the  organization  and that  this court   has power to  protect  abuse of power.  It  was  submitted that the applicant  will suffer  trial while  the culprits  are walking  free.

Determination

54. I have carefully considered the applicant’s notice of motion, grounds, depositions and exhibits.  I have  also considered  the responses  by  the 2nd  respondent, depositions and exhibits.  I have  given equal  consideration  to the parties advocates rival submissions  as filed and  as  highlighted  orally in court.

55. The scope of Judicial Review remedies  of certiorari, mandamus  and prohibition was the subject  of the Court  of Appeal decision  in the most  quoted  case of Kenya  National Examinations   Council  Vs Republic  Exparte  Geoffery  Gathenji  Njoroge  & Others CA 266/1996 [1997] e KLR wherein the court  held inter alia:

“ prohibition looks  at the future so that if  a tribunal  were to announce in advance  that it would  consider itself  not bound by the  rules of  natural justice  the High Court  would be  obliged  to prohibit  it from  acting  contrary to the rules of natural justice.  However, where a  decision has been  made, whether in excess  or lack  of jurisdiction or whether  in violation of the rules  of natural justice, an order of   prohibition  would  not be  efficacious  against the decision so made.  Prohibition cannot quash a decision which has  already  been made; it can only  prevent the making of a contemplated  decision…….prohibition 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, be to correct the course, practice or procedure of an inferior tribunal, or a wrong decision on the merits of the proceedings…  The order of mandamus  is of  a most extensive  remedial  nature, and is, in form , a command  issuing  from the High court of Justice, directed any person, corporation or inferior  tribunal, requiring  him or them  to do some   particular thing  therein  specified  which  appertains  to his  or their  office and is on the nature  of a public  duty.  Its purpose  is to  remedy  the defects  of justice  and  accordingly, it  will issue, to the end that justice  may be done, in all cases where  is a specific   legal  right or  no  specific  legal remedy for enforcing  that  right, and  it may issue  in cases where,  although  there an  alternative legal remedy; yet  that mode  of redress is less  convenient , beneficial  and  effectual…….only an order of certiorari  can quash  a decision already made and an  order of certiorari will issue if the  decision  is without  jurisdiction  or in  excess  of  jurisdiction, or  where  the rules  of natural  justice  are not complied  with or  for such like  reasons.  In the present   appeal the respondents did not apply   for an order of certiorari and that is all the court   wants to say on that aspect of the matter.”

56. From the above decision  which has been   applied with approval  in many  succeeding   cases seeking for  judicial review remedies, it  is clear that an order  of prohibition  can only  prevent   the making of  a contemplated  decision.

57. In other words, prohibition will not issue in the nature of a declaration or injunction but is directed at a contemplated action.

58. In addition, prohibition cannot quash  a decision which has  already been made but  it issued  by the High Court  to the inferior  body or  tribunal  forbidding  that body or tribunal to continue proceedings therein in excess of  its jurisdiction  or in  contravention  of the law or constitution; and lies where  there is  exercise of excess  jurisdiction or absence  of jurisdiction and   also for a departure  from the cause  of  the rules  of natural justice.

59. On the other hand  certiorari  is issued  to remove into the High Court  and  to quash  a decision  of a body  or inferior  tribunal   which is made  in excess  of  jurisdiction, without  jurisdiction or where the  rules of natural  justice  are not  adhered  to in  reaching  the decision.

60.  Judicial Review, it must be appreciated, does not  concern itself   with the merits   of the decision itself  but with the  issues  such as  whether the  procedure  followed in arriving  at the decision   was in accordance  with the law  and Rules of natural justice, whether  the  decision  as taken is lawful, rational, reasonable; whether  the decision maker  took into  account relevant matter or did take into account   irrelevant  matters.

61. The court is exercising Judicial Review jurisdiction  is cautioned  not to act  as a Court of Appeal  over the decision of the  inferior  body, which would involve going  into the merits  of the decision itself- such as  whether  there  was  or there  was not sufficient evidence  to support  the decision ( See Municipal  Council of Mombasa  Vs  Republic  & Umoja  Consultants  Ltd CA No. 185  of  2001 (CA).

62. In Republicof Kenya Revenue Authority exparte Yaya TowersLtd [2008] e KLR.  It was held that   the remedy of Judicial Review is concerned with reviewing not the merits of the decision of which the application for Judicial Review is made, but the decision making process it.

63. That it is  important  to remember  that in every  case the purpose of the remedy of Judicial Review is to ensure that the individual  is given fair treatment by the authority  to  which he has  been subjected and  that it  is no part of that purpose to  substitute  the opinion of the Judiciary  or of the  individual judges for that of the authority constituted by law to decide the  matter in question.  Unless that restriction on the power of the court is observed, the court will, under the guise of preventing abuse of power, be itself, guilty of usurpation of power.  (see Halsbbury’s Laws of England 4th Edition VOL (1) (1) paragraph 60.

64. In  Exparte Waldron [1986] 1QB 84 at  825  G-825H Glidwell  L.J. stated that the  court should  always  interrogate  relevant  factors  to be considered  deciding  whether  the alternative  remedy  would resolve the question at issue  fully and  directly.

65. In  Commissioner  of Lands V  Hotel Kunste  CA 234/1995  the  Court of Appeal  held that  where the  determination of the dispute before the court requires the court to  make a  resolution  on conflicting  issues  of fact, that is  not a suitable  case  for Judicial Review since  Judicial Review  jurisdiction  is a special  jurisdiction which is neither civil  nor criminal.  Judicial Review is a discretionary remedy and  is not  guaranteed hence the  court may refuse  to grant  them even  when there  exists  requisite  grounds  since the  court has to weigh one thing  against another  and  see whether  or not  the remedy  is the most   efficacious  in the circumstances  obtaining  and  since  the discretion  of the court  is a judicial  one,  it must  be  exercised  on the evidence  of sound legal  principles.

66. Where the issue of Judicial Review remedy will cause administrative  chaos  and public  inconvenience  or where the  object for which the application is made has already been realized, or  where there has been  delay or where  the public authority  or body has done  all that it can be expected  to do to fulfill  its duty  or where  the remedy is not necessary  or where   its path is strewn with blockage, the court will not  issue Judicial Review.

67. The exparte applicant in this case claims that  she  was an employee of Joytharc  International which is  an acronym or Joy  Vision  for Youth  and Children  International, which  is a non  Government  Organization.  That  she   was not  an official  or director   of the said organization  and that  while she   was engaged  in her  said employment, she was  arrested  and arraigned  in court   charged with 2 counts of   the offences of obtaining  money  by false  pretences contrary to Section 313 of the Penal Code.  She claims that although the prosecution claims that she received some supplies from the respective complainants namely  Cinative Enterprises Company Limited and  Facelift  Enterprises  Limitedby  falsely  pretending  that she  was in a position  to pay for the named goods valued at shs 8,223,500 and shs 4,755. 500  respectively  for each  count, she  could not have  received  such goods  with a  promise to pay since she  was not an  official  of the organization and that the search  from NGO Board is clear that  the officials  of the organization  dated  2nd  December  2014, the officials  are named  as Samuel Mburu  Njenga  as chairman; Mutura  Isaiah  Kirema  who is the  secretary  and  Irene Makena who is he  treasurer.

68. She further claims that the decision to charge her and not the official of the organization is selective and discriminatory and therefore in violation of Articles 27and 50 of the Constitution, is irrational unreasonable and oppressive.

69. Further, that the DCI by his own  letter dated  8th January  2015  to the officer in charge Special Crime Prevention Unit  questioned  why the  applicant   was the one  charged yet she  was the bona  fide   official of  Joytharc International a.ka Joy Vision for Youth and Children  International.  He  urged that the  investigating  officer be  prevailed upon to trace  the official  of the organization   and  record their  statements  in respect of   the allegations of fraud  leveled against them.  It is therefore claimed by the applicant that there was absolutely no  foundational basis   upon which she  was  being  prosecuted, which  prosecution  she believes will not  achieve any justice  for the complainants  but that  it is meant  to shield  the perpetrators  of the crime.

70. On the other hand, the 2nd  respondent  Director of Public  Prosecutions  contends that the applicant is  part of  a  team that  are involved in defrauding innocent people of their properties/goods in that although there  is an allegation that  Joytharc  International  is the same   as  Joy Vision  for Youth  and Children  International, in reality,  the two  are different  organizations  and that  whereas  the latter   was registered  with NGOs Coordination  Board as  per the letter  of  2nd December   2014, with  the postal office address  and  physical  address  being Box 101764-00201 Nairobi situate at Hurlingham –Kiambu  East Nairobi North, Joytharc International according   to the NGO Board  letter  dared  18th November 2014   was not registered  as an NGO  with the NGO Coordination Board .  In addition, that the organization that  was registered   with the NGO  Coordination  Board  was  deregistered  as per the  newspaper advertisement annexed, showing that  the organization  was deregistered  on  30th April  2016   for non compliance  with the NGO’s  Coordination  Act No.  19/1990 and the matter concerning allegations of criminal nature   against the organization had been referred to the Nation Police Service for investigations.

71. Further, that the applicant  belongs to  a web, part of whom  had been  charges  with similar  offences  and  that they even  use the Spring Valley address and adverse tenders to win the confidence  of unsuspecting suppliers.  Further, that the police  are in the process of  tracing  the officials  of the said  non registered  organization  with a new   to preferring  charges  against them.

72. It  was  contended  that the other  conspirators  had also  filed petition  No. 563/2015  seeking to stop  their prosecuting which involves  a complex fraud  against innocent  business persons.

73. In addition, the Director of Public Prosecutions  claims that  it will be  in the interest of justice of  the  applicant   faces the  law since there is evidence linking  her to the  complex  web   of fraudsters in order to  vindicate the innocent   complainants  and the several pending  cases would be  consolidated  since  they form part of   the same  transaction.

74. It is also contended that the decision to charge   the applicant and others was informed by the evidence showing her participation and connection with the conspiracy   and in the public against such intricate  web.

75. From the above   rival  opposing  positions, the question  that  must  answer  is whether the  Judicial Review  remedies   of certiorari  and  prohibition  lie.

76. The power to prosecute  persons  who are  suspected to have committed  culpable  offences is vested  in the Director of  Public Prosecution  by Article  157  of the Constitution and Section of the  Office of Director of Public Prosecutions  Act, 2014.

77. In Associated Provincial Pictures Houses Ltd V Wednesbury  Corporation [1947] I KB 223  and Wainaina  V Attorney General [2008]  KLR  the courts   held that   courts should not  interfere  with the exercise  of  discretionary  powers  unless certain conditions are met.  And in Githunguri V Republic (supra). It was held that the onus was on the petitioners to prove that the Attorney General exercised his power arbitrary, oppressively or contrary to public policy.

78. As  was held  in the Githunguri V Republic (supra)  case, the power to institute  criminal  proceedings  against  any person  by the Director of Public Prosecutions  in exercising  the  powers conferred  by this Article, shall  have  regard  to the public interest, the interests  of the administration of justice  and  the need  to prevent   and avoid  abuse  of the legal  process.

79. For this  court to  intervene   and  interfere  or check  the free exercise  of the independence  and  discretion  of the Director of Public Prosecutions in charging  persons  with criminal  offences, the applicant must show that  here is  breach of the  Constitution  and the law.  In KCB Ltd & 2 Others V Commissioner of Police    & Another Nairobi Petition No. 218/2011,the court held that:

“ The office of  Director of Public  Prosecutions  and  Inspector  General  of the National  Police Service   are independent  and this court  would not ordinarily  interfere in the running  of   their offices and  exercise  of their discretion  within the limits  provided for  by the law.  But these   offices   are subject to the Constitution  and the  Bill of Rights  contained  therein and  in every  case, the High Court  as the custodian  of the  Bill of Rights is entitled to intervene where the facts disclose a violation   of the rights  and  fundamental  freedoms guaranteed  under the  Constitution.

80. In this case, there are allegations of several unsuspecting   suppliers being defrauded  by Joytharc International  which is  not  Joy Vision  for Youth  and Children International (Joytharc) which   is not registered as an NGO under such name which is allegedly being used to defraud business people.

81. On the other hand, the organization by the name Joy Vision for Youth and Children International (Joytharc) which was initially  registered with the NGO’s Coordination Board  was deregistered   in  April  2014  after  suppliers  complained that the organization was defrauding them.  The NGOs Coordination Board confirmed that the latter organization had its registered offices in Hurlingham, Nairobi.

82. However, the court notes that the material availed by the exparte applicant in this case show  that the organization going by the Acronym  Joytharc operated  as such Joytharc International  from Spring  Valley  Ridge/off  Peponi  Road, Westlands  and  its  postal address is given  as Box  9075-00100 Nairobi Kenya  and   it send  out an advertisement  for  prequalification of bids for supply  of a variety  of goods.

83.  It is not  stated when   the  organization  moved from Hurlingham to Spring Valley Ridge/off  Peponi  Westlands but  what is clear  is that there are  particulars  of the officials who were registered as Chairman, Treasurer  and  Secretary  of the organization  which  was deregistered  on 30th Aril 2014.

84. The exparte applicant herein claims that she was employed as Communications Manager  of the said organization  Joy Vision  for Youth and Children International (Joytharc),on a six months contract at a monthly basic salary   of shs   100,000 from 27th October 2014 to 27th April 2015.

85. However, in paragraph 2 of the applicant’s affidavit in support of her case herein, she deposes as follows:

“ That  I was employed  by a nongovernmental  organization by the name Joy Vision  for Youth and Children International (Joytharc) on  21st July  2014  and  was  confirmed  on  27th October  2014. ”

86. The exparte applicant then attached an annexture marked “JW1” letter of confirmation in her employment.  However, in the said letter to confirm employment as later annexed to her supplementary affidavit duly signed by the Board of Trustees of the Organization, the first paragraph reads:

“ with  reference  to your  offer ( appointment  letter dated  27th October  2014 on the basis  of which you  joined this  company  as a  Communication Manager, We are pleased to inform you that you have been successful in your probation and your services  with our organization……”

87. In my  humble view, a letter of  offer/appointment  dated  the same day as  the letter of confirmation  in  employment   and  claiming that  that the employee  has successfully  completed her  probationary period  which period  is unspecified  is highly  suspect.

88. Although the applicant is not registered as an official of Joytharc, it   is highly improbable, from the letter of   27th October 2014 that she was an ordinary employee thereof and therefore the police in carrying out their investigations concerning alleged fraud and conspiracy to defraud and or obtaining money by false pretences, cannot be said to be acting illegally, oppressively and arbitrarily.

89. In addition the letter of   the Director of Criminal Investigations dated 8th January 2015 does not exonerate the applicant from any culpability.  It simply points out  the status  of the applicant  in the organization- not being  an official on the face  of it and  calling on  the officer in charge  of Special Crime  Prevention  Unit  to prevail upon the  investigating  officer  to trace  the officials  of the organization to record statements in respect of the allegations of fraud leveled against them.  That letter does not conclude that there is no evidence   linking the applicant herein to the   offences charged.

90. The Director  of  Public Prosecutions  has clearly  stated that   the  case involves an intricate  web of fraudsters  who use the  name of the organization to defraud  unsuspecting  business people.  Fraud is an intricate offence. It must be left to the experts to investigate and if the applicant is found innocent, she will be vindicated.

91. The applicant has asked the court to find that the evidence shows that Hezborn Omondi was introduced to the Joytharc by Francis Otieno Okungu.  The statement of Hezborn also shows that Jacky- the applicant herein told him that he would be paid for the supplies within 14 days of supplying the items and that when the organization defaulted, he went to inquire and Jacky the applicant herein told him to make a request for an early payment which he did make but that no payments have been made to him ever since.

92. It is  not denied that  the organization was  deregistered by the regulatory  body-NGO Coordination  Board on  30th April  2014  and that as at the  time the  alleged  fraudulent  activities   were taking place, the  organization  was non- existent. However, it is clear that despite the deregistration, the organization continued operating and receiving supplies from people on the belief that they would be paid.

93. From the affidavit  evidence and annextures, placed before this court, Iam  unable  to find that there  was absolutely  no foundational basis  upon which the  Director of Public Prosecutions  made a decision to charge  the applicant  with the named  offences.

94. In addition, I am unable to find that the Director of Public Prosecutions,  at the time  that he charged  the applicant  with  the named  offences, he acted  in a selective  and  or discriminatory manner thereby violating Articles 50 and  27  of the Constitution, for reasons  that the Director of Public Prosecutions  has clearly  explained  that at that time  investigations  were still ongoing  to trace the officials  of the organization.

95. The fact that the  officials  of the organization  were at  large at  the time of charging  the applicant,  since, as stated in the investigating officer’s  affidavit, the organization’s offices were closed  from 17th December  2014   with a notice  stating  that they  would reopen  on 15th January  2015  which never  materialized; does  not in  itself  show any selective/discriminating  action on the part of the  investigating officer or the Director of Public Prosecutions.

96. The  applicant  did not,  in her affidavit   depose that she knew  as a fact  that  the said  “officials”   were readily available  but that  the Director of Public Prosecutions and the police   had deliberately  refused to arraign them in court.

97. The matter of selective and discriminatory prosecution has to be examined on the facts of each case.  No two  cases are  the same  and this case   can be  distinguished  from the George  Okungu case in that  in that case,  the other suspects  were readily  available  and not  at large unlike in the instant case.

98. The 2nd respondent’s further  affidavit sworn on   14th March 2016  is clear at  paragraph 5 that there are  other co-conspirators  charged with  similar offences  and  that they had also filed  Petition No. 563 of  2015 and further that  they are facing  charges in  Kibera  criminal  4512/2014   which   the prosecution   was contemplating   consolidation.

99. This case, in my humble view, raises serious conflicting issues of fact and   as  was held  by the Court of  Appeal  in Commissioner of Lands  Vs Hotel  Kunste (supra), where the  determination of the dispute before the court requires  the court  to make  a resolution of conflicting  issues of fact, that  is not a suitable case for   Judicial Review  since Judicial Review  jurisdiction  is  special  jurisdiction  which is  neither  civil nor  criminal.

100. From the facts of this case, it  is clear that  the  applicant is  urging this court to delve  into the depths of the matter and  determine  the merits  of the case  and or to assess  the evidence  on record  in the subordinate trial  court to determine its sufficiency  or veracity, to sustain  a charge  or prosecution of the exparte applicant.

101. That is not within  the purview of  this court  and  to do otherwise in essence will  be reviewing the evidence  which is due for  adduction in the trial court  and therefore   act as  an appellate   court in Judicial  Review proceedings.

102. In the instant case, this court is unable to find evidence of malice on the part of Director of Public Prosecutions in preferring   charges against the exparte applicant.  I am also unable to find any irrationality, illegality or any procedural impropriety on the part of the Director of Public Prosecutions.

103. The applicant   has not demonstrated  on the affidavit  evidence available, that she   will be  prejudiced  by the pending  trial or  that she   has been denied  the right to a fair hearing  or fair trial  by the maintenance of  the criminal charges  against her.

104. There is also no evidence that the  applicant’s prosecution  is malafides and that it is  being undertaken with the sole  intention of shielding the real perpetrators  of the crime since  from the affidavit  evidence    on record , it is clear that  the matter involves  an intricate  wide web  of fraudulent  activities  by persons  claiming to be operating  an NGO which is even deregistered.

105. There is  also no evidence that the Office of Director of Public  Prosecutions    has in prosecuting  the applicant  breached any of  the principles  espoused  in the Office of Director of Public  Prosecutions Act No. 2  of  2013  namely: promotion of public confidence  in the integrity of the office; promotion of constitutionalism; impartiality; rules  of  natural justice;  the need to  discharge  the functions  of the office on behalf  of the people   of Kenya and  observance  of democratic  values and  principles.

106. The Office of Director of Public Prosecutions is mandated under Section 5 of the Office of Director of Public Prosecution Act to among others:

“ implement  an effective   prosecution  mechanism so as to maintain  the  rule  of law and  contribute  to fair and    equitable  criminal justice  and  the effective  protection  of citizens  against crime.”

107. From the affidavit   evidence  on record,this court  is unable to find that  the Director of Public Prosecution’s decision to  prosecute  the applicant amounts  to abuse of court  process  and  or abuse  of the legal process.

108. Further, I am  unable to  find  that there   is any  evidence  that  the Director of Public Prosecutions is being  manipulated to act  impartially  by charging  the  applicant  and leaving  out the  real perpetrators of the crime.

109. This court  would not hesitate to  intervene  and  interfere  with the   decisions  of the Director of Public Prosecutions where  such  decisions  are illegal, irrational , unreasonable and or made  with  procedural impropriety and  or where  he is manipulated  to shield  the wrongdoers.

110. I find, on the evidence  availed, that this is not one of those  clear cases  where this court would  exercise  its discretion in favour of  the  applicant to  tamper  with the powers of the Director of Public Prosecutions which have been  exercised  in making  the decision  to prosecute  the applicant  herein.

111. The highly disputed facts in the matter call for in-depth interrogation by the trial court to determine   the veracity of the evidence gathered by the investigating officer and not for review by this court.

112. In the end, I find that the exparte applicant’s application dated 27th March, 2015 for Judicial Review orders   of certiorari and prohibition is not merited and I proceed to dismiss it without any order as to costs.

Dated, signed and delivered in open court this 11th day of   October 2016.

R.E. ABURILI

JUDGE

N/A for the exparte applicant

N/A for the respondents

CA: Adline