Republic v Inspector General of Police & Director of Criminal Investigations Exparte Billy Shigoli Amunkune [2017] KEHC 5914 (KLR)

REPUBLIC OF KENYA

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA

AT NAIROBI

JUDICIAL REVIEW

MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION NO.  124 OF 2017

IN THE MATTER OF AN APPLICATION BY BILLY SHIGOLI AMUNKUNE FOR LEAVE TO APPLY FOR AN ORDER OF PROHIBITION, MANDAMUS AND CERTIORARI

AND

IN THE MATTER OF AN APPLICATION FOR ENFORCEMENT OF FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS UNDER ARTICLE  20(1), (2) & (3), ARTICLE  22(1) 3(B)&(4), 165(3) (B)  AND  ARTICLE 23(1)  OF THE CONSTITUTION

AND

IN THE MATTER OF AN APPLICATION BY BILLY SHIGOLI AMUNKUNE FOR DECLARATION THAT THE PROSECUTION OF THE APPLICANT IN MILIMANI CHIEF MAGISTRATE’S COURT CR. CASE NO.  12   OF 2017 VIOLATES, INFRINGES OR THREATENS THE APPLICANT’S RIGHT OF FUNDAMENTAL FREEDOM AND THE SAME IS NOT JUSTIFIABLE.

AND

IN THE MATTER OF ARTICLE 23 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF KENYA AND   SECTION 316A (2) OF THE PENAL CODE

AND

IN THE MATTER OF THE PROSECUTION OF THE APPLICANT OVER AN ALLEGED BAD CHEQUE.

BETWEEN

REPUBLIC.........................................................................................APPLICANT

AND

THE INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE..........................1ST RESPONDENT

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

VERSUS

BILLY SHIGOLI AMUNKUNE........................................EXPARTE APPLICANT

16. 3.2017

Coram before R.E. Aburili J

Duty Judge

In chambers

Court:

I have perused this file and I find two applications dated 15th March 2017.  One is a chamber summons and the other is a  notice of motion, brought under Order  53 Rule 1 and  Order 53  Rule 3  of the Civil Procedure  Rules respectively.

The chamber  summons  seeks for  leave to apply  for Judicial Review orders of mandamus, prohibition and certiorari against the Inspector General  of Police  and  the Director of  Criminal Investigations; and  a  prayer for stay of prosecution. The notice of motion on the other hand  seeks for substantive   orders.

The chamber summons  is said to be supported by an affidavit  of  the exparte applicant.  However, that  affidavit  is annexed  to the notice of motion  not on the chamber summons.

In addition, there is no statutory  statement accompanying the chamber summons  but there is  one accompanying  the notice of motion for substantive orders.

Under Order  53 Rule 1(2) of the Civil Procedure Rules, the application for leave  shall be  made exparte  to a judge  in chambers, and shall be accompanied  by a statement  setting out  the name and description of the applicant, the reliefs  sought,  and the grounds  on which it is sought, and  by affidavits  verifying  the facts  relied on.

In this case, the chamber summons as filed does not  comply  with the above  rule.  In addition, the prayers   sought in the Chamber summons  are joint  such that  one would not  know what is certiorari, prohibition  and  mandamus would serve.

Further, the court notes that  the  notice of motion  is already filed  before leave   to file is granted, contrary to Rule (1) (1) of Order  53  of the Civil Procedure Rules.

The court  further notes that  there is a charge sheet  showing there is a pending case before court in Milimani CM’s  Criminal Case No.12/2017 against the applicant herein.

The police who are parties to these  proceedings  as respondents, and the  Director of Criminal Investigations only play an investigative  and arresting  role as  stipulated  in  Section 24  of the National Police  Service Act.

On the other hand, the decision   to prosecute  the applicant  is  taken by the Director of Public  Prosecutions as stipulated  in Article  157  of the Constitution   and the  Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions Act.

Further,  the trial  is conducted  by the Chief Magistrate   not the police.

In this case, neither the  Director of Public Prosecutions who are the prosecutors, nor the Chief Magistrate who is in control of the criminal proceedings  are parties to this case.  It therefore  follows that  to grant  leave  against the police  is a waste of  judicial time  and  resources.

The applications hereto are fatally incompetent for non compliance with Order 53 of the Civil Procedure  Rules. They lack merit  and  cause confusion  to the judicial process. They are  an abuse of the court process. They are hereby  dismissed with no orders as to costs.

Orders accordingly.

R. E. ABURILI

JUDGE

16/3/2017