Republic v Nairobi City County & First Class Magistrate Court at City Hall Nairobi Ex parte Hema Virendra Kashyap [2016] KEHC 1089 (KLR)

REPUBLIC OF KENYA

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA

AT NAIROBI

JUDICIAL REVIEW NO.  332   OF 2016

IN THE MATER OF AN APPLICATION BY HEMAVIRENDRA

KASHYAP FOR ORDERS OF PROHIBITION

AND

IN THE MATTER OF THE FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE’S COURT

AT CITY HALL NAIROBI IN CASE NO.  109 OF 2015

AND

IN THE MATER OF ARTICLE 48 & 50 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF KENYA

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

VERSUS

NAIROBI CITY COUNTY......................................1ST RESPONDENT

THE FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE

COURT AT CITY HALL NAIROBI........................2ND RESPONDENT

AND

HEMA VIRENDRA KASHYAP........................EX-PARTE APPLICANT

JUDGMENT

1. On 10th August 2016, this court   granted to the exparte applicant herein Hema Virendra  Kashyap allegedly ( wrongly  referred  to in the charge  sheet in  criminal case  No. 109/2015   filed before  the Magistrate’s Court at City Hall  Nairobi as Hema Patel Kashyap), leave to apply for Judicial Review orders of prohibition to  prohibit  the Nairobi City County  from prosecuting her and or taking  any further  steps in criminal case No, 109/2015.

2. The Court also  directed that the substantive   motion be  filed  and served within 21 days  from the date of leave, and the  leave as  granted   was to operate  as stay of any further proceedings  in criminal case No. 109/2015  at the City Magistrate’s court until the substantive motion  if filed  is heard  and determined.

3. On  25th August 2016  the exparte applicant  filed and served upon the respondents the substantive  notice of motion  in terms of the leave granted  and as shown by the affidavit  of service  of Daniel Waweru Mwangi sworn   on 8th September  2016 respectively.

4. On 19th September 2016 the respondents filed notice of appointment of advocates through Morara Onsongo & Co-advocates. When the  matter came  up for  mention on 4th October  2016,  the respondents  counsel Miss  Sitienei holding brief for Mr  Morara  sought  indulgence  to file  their replying affidavit  but even  after being  granted  15 days  and this  matter coming  up on  8th November  2016 for  hearing interpartes, there  was no replying affidavit  filed.

5. The application proceeded  to hearing with Mrs Macharia submitting  on behalf  of the applicant, replying  on the grounds, the statutory statement and the verifying affidavit and annextures  filed together  with the  chamber summons  dated  28th July  2016.

6. According to the exparte applicant, and which averments and depositions have not been controverted, she is wrongly charged before the city Magistrates Court vide criminal case No.109/2015  with advertising  contrary  to Section  30(1)  with  reference  to Section 3 of the  Physical  Planning  Act  Cap  286  Laws of Kenya and punishable  under Section  30(2)  of the same Act.  That although she is alleged to have erected an advertisement (sky sign) at the Taj Mall on LR 209/139, she had no idea what that is and that although she took a plea   in court, the case has never proceeded to hearing.

7. That she is neither an employee, Director, shareholder, owner nor even a tenant of Taj Mall and therefore she does not understand why she was hauled into court and charged with an offence.  She considers  the criminal proceedings  against her   malicious  hence the respondents  should be  prohibited  from continuing  with these criminal  charges  against the exparte  applicant.

8. The only  issue for determination   in this matter  is whether on the material supplied  before court, an order of  prohibition  as sought  in these judicial  Review  proceedings  is available to the  exparte applicant.

9. The scope of Judicial Review  remedies   was the subject  of the  Court of Appeal decision  in the often  cited case  of Kenya National Examinations Council Vs Republic Exparte  Geoffrey Gathenji  Njoroge & Others CA  266 of 1996 [1977] e KLR  where the Court of Appeal  held, inter alia:

“……prohibition  looks  to the future  so that  if a tribunal  were to  announce in advance  that it  would  consider  itself not bound  by the  Rule of Natural Justice  the High  Court would be obliges to prohibit  if from acting contrary  to the Rules of Natural Justice.  However, where a decision  has been  made, whether  in excess of 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 d 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 s of natural justice.  It does not lie, however, to correct the course, practice or procedure of an inferior tribunal, or a wrong decision on the merits of the proceedings……..”

10. From the above decision, it is clear that an order of prohibition in Judicial Review proceedings can only be made to prevent the making of a contemplated decision.

11. In other words, prohibition ought not to be made or issued in the nature of a declaration but is directed at a contemplated action.  It therefore  follows  that unless  the exparte  applicant  shows that  the respondents  contemplated an action in the circumstances under which orders  of Judicial Review  may issue, the court  will not   readily  issue an order of prohibition.

12. In the instant case, the criminal charges  subject of these proceedings  vide criminal  109/2015   have already  been initiated, whether  rightly or wrongly, and  there is no prayer for  the order of certiorari to quash the decision  to charge  or to prosecute the exparte  applicant  with the criminal offence of erecting  a sky sign.

13. In Judicial  Review proceedings,  the High  Court does not  examine the merits of the decisions  to charge the  exparte applicant,  and neither  does the  court seek to interrogate  whether or not  the exparte  applicant is  innocent   because   she is wrongly  charged  with the criminal offence.

14. The court is concerned with the decision making process, and not to act as an appellate court over the inferior court or tribunal.  The court will not question whether or not there   was sufficient  evidence  to prove  that the  exparte  applicant  is the person who  erected a  sky sign subject to the charge  sheet presented  before the second  respondent Magistrate’s court.  (See Municipal Council of Mombasa Vs Republic & Umoja consultants Ltd CA No. 185/2001.

15. In Republic vs Kenya Revenue Authority Exparte Yaya Towers Ltd [2008] e KLR.  The court held:

“Theremedy 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 itself.  It is   important to remember  in every case that the purpose  of the remedy   of Judicial  Review  is to ensure that the individual  is given a fair treatment  by the  authority   to which he has been   subjected  and that it  is not  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 Halsbury’s  Law of England  4th Edition  VOL (1) (1)  paragraph  60”

16. Thus  the purpose of Judicial Review  is to ensure that  an individual  receives  fair treatment, and not  to ensure  that the  authority, after  according  fair treatment, reaches  on a matter   which it is  authorized  by law   to decide for  itself,  a conclusion which is  correct  in the  eyes  of the court.

17. In this case, the exparte  applicant  complains that she  is not aware of  the charge  of erecting  a sky sign without lawful  authority  and or why   she was charged  yet she  has no relation or association  with Taj Mall.  Further, that the respondent acted ultra vires, unreasonably and in bad faith in charging her.

18. Indeed, there is the question of whether the exparte applicant was wrongly referred to in the charge sheet and therefore whether she is the one charged before the court, or whether she erected any sky sign for purposes of   advertisement, without lawful authority.

19. However, to determine  whether or  not the exparte  applicant  is the one  wrongly  referred to in the charge  sheet  and or whether  she erected  any sky  sign  without  lawful authority, requires  evidence to be adduced  orally and in documentary  form and  the burden  of proof  of those facts as disclosed  in the charge  sheet lies on the 1st respondent to discharge, beyond   reasonable  doubt.

20. Nonetheless, it is not the  jurisdiction  of  this court  to exercise  criminal  jurisdiction  to determine  whether or  not there  is evidence to prove the charge framed against the exparte applicant.  That jurisdiction is barred by Sections 8 and 9 of the Law Reform, Act Cap 26 Laws of Kenya.

21. This not being a trial court, it lacks jurisdiction to resolve those conflicting issues of fact.  And  to proceed  to prohibit  the criminal charges  pending  before the City Magistrate, there   must be  an order declaring  that the  decision  to charge  the exparte applicant  was  made  arbitrarily, without jurisdiction  or  was an abuse of power.

22. The applicant has not sought any declarations or orders of certiorari.  The applicant has not sought to challenge the process through which the decision to charge her was made.  It therefore follows that only the trial court  has the power to hear  evidence   or objections to the charges  and  make a finding  on the merits  of the charge or decision to charge  the exparte  applicant  with  the offences contained in the charge sheet.

23. In Republic Vs Judicial Service Commission Exparte Pareno[2004] 1 KLR 203-209, the court   was categorical  and  I agree  that:

“Judicial Review  orders are  discretionary  and are not  guaranteed  and hence a  court may  refuse to grant them even where  the  requisite  grounds exist  since the  court has to  weigh one thing  against the  other 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….”

24. Although this court is   alive to the fact that Judicial Review remedies are now anchored in the Constitution at Article 47 and the provisions of the Fair Administrative Action Act, 2015, the court has not been shown how and what specific the provisions of the Constitution and of the Fair Administrative Action Act have been   breached in charging the exparte applicant.

25. The fact that the  exparte applicant’s  case has not  proceeded  to hearing  since March   2015 as submitted  by her counsel is not in itself a ground for  prohibition  to issue for  reasons that the applicant can object to any adjournments  by the prosecution  and if there is  any impropriety in the manner  the trial is being conducted, then the exparte applicant can invoke the  provisions of Article 165(6) of the  Constitution and Article  165(7)  thereof  to ask the High Court  to call for the record  of the subordinate  court and for purposes of making any order or give any  direction it considers appropriate to ensure the fair administration  of justice.  That has not been done.

26. In addition, although it  was averred  that the  charges preferred against the exparte applicant are malafides and malicious  and  without  jurisdiction, this court  was  not shown  any  particulars  of malice on the part of the respondents  and neither    was there any  submission touching  on the jurisdiction of the  1st respondent  in charging  the applicant or  of the 2nd respondent  in conducting the criminal  trial.  In other words, the applicant did not  unveil any material  evidence  before  the court upon which the court can  find that  she  is truly entitled  to the  grant  of Judicial  Review  orders of  prohibition .  She did not even rely on any ground of abuse of power   by the 1st respondent in charging her.  She has not  claimed that she   was   discriminated  upon or that  other  people  were being shielded to nail her  or that there  is no proper  foundation for   the charge  or that the charge against her is frivolous, vexatious and oppressive  or  abuse  of court   process. She neither demonstrated that her constitutional right to accessing justice has been violated in any way by her continued prosecution.

27. The exparte  applicant   did not even  demonstrate  to this court  that she   was being denied  her right to  a fair  trial for  she  did not adduce any evidence  showing  that  she had  asked the prosecution  to avail to her  all the prosecution witnesses’  statements  to enable her  prepare for  the trial  and that the request   was turned  down or  not responded  to.  The applicant has failed to discharge the burden of proof.

28. In the end, I am unable to find any merits in this Judicial Review application for Orders of prohibition.  I proceed and dismiss the Judicial Review application dated 25th August 2016, with no orders as to costs.

Dated, signed and delivered in open court at Nairobi this 9th day of November, 2016.

R.E. ABURILI

JUDGE

In the presence of

Mr Mungai for the applicant

Miss Sitienei for the Respondents

CA: Adline