[2025] KEHC 6190 (KLR)

[2025] KEHC 6190 (KLR)

The court held that the applicant, not being an accused, the state, or a victim in the criminal proceedings, lacked locus standi to bring the application for revision. The Criminal Procedure Code and constitutional provisions do not envisage intervention by non-parties in criminal trials. The court found that the...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2025] KEHC 6190 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: George Dicks Atwetwe; Respondent: Yagnesh Mohanlal Devani; Respondent: Mahendra Pathak; Respondent: Benedict Mutua; Respondent: Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions; Respondent: Triton Petroleum Company Limited
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Judgment Date
5 May 2025
Case Number
Criminal Revision E1767 of 2024
Procedural Posture
Criminal Revision / Ruling on Preliminary Objection/locus Standi
Outcome
Application struck out for want of locus standi.
Judges
AM Muteti
Legal Topics
Locus Standi, Public Interest Litigation, Revision Jurisdiction, Abuse of Process
Source Language
english
Criminal Law Civil Procedure Locus Standi Public Interest Litigation Revision Jurisdiction Abuse of Process

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

George Dicks Atwetwe

Applicant

Yagnesh Mohanlal Devani

Respondent

Mahendra Pathak

Respondent

Benedict Mutua

Respondent

Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions

Respondent

Triton Petroleum Company Limited

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Revision / Ruling on Preliminary Objection/locus Standi

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant has locus standi to seek revision orders in a criminal case where he is neither an accused nor a victim.
  2. 2 Whether the application constitutes an abuse of the criminal justice process under the guise of public interest.
  3. 3 Whether the High Court can entertain interlocutory applications by non-parties in criminal proceedings.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the applicant, not being an accused, the state, or a victim in the criminal proceedings, lacked locus standi to bring the application for revision. The Criminal Procedure Code and constitutional provisions do not envisage intervention by non-parties in criminal trials. The court found that the applicant's purported public interest was a pretext to aid the 1st respondent in evading trial, amounting to an abuse of process. The court emphasized that only the Director of Public Prosecutions has the constitutional mandate to pursue public interest in criminal matters. Consequently, the application was struck out for want of locus standi, and the court declined to review or...

Court Disposition

Application struck out for want of locus standi.

Orders

  • The application is struck out.
  • No orders as to costs.