[2025] KEHC 6378 (KLR)
The court found that the applicant, a practicing advocate, had demonstrated a credible apprehension of arbitrary arrest and detention by the respondents based on social media allegations linking her law firm to a fraudulent scheme. The applicant had not been summoned or given an opportunity to be heard, and there...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2025] KEHC 6378 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Christine Ouko Angado & Co Advocates; Respondent: Inspector General National Police Service; Respondent: Directorate Criminal Investigation
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Kiambu
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Criminal Miscellaneous Application E141 of 2024
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Notice of Motion for Anticipatory Bail and Conservatory Orders
- Outcome
- application allowed
- Judges
- DO Chepkwony
- Legal Topics
- Anticipatory Bail, Conservatory Orders, Arrest and Detention, Legal Profession Regulation
- Source Language
- en
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Christine Ouko Angado & Co Advocates
Applicant
Inspector General National Police Service
Respondent
Directorate Criminal Investigation
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Criminal Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Notice of Motion for Anticipatory Bail and Conservatory Orders
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the applicant is entitled to anticipatory bail/bond to prevent arbitrary arrest and detention.
- 2 Whether the respondents can interfere with the applicant's person without due process and opportunity to be heard.
- 3 Whether the regulation of legal fees earned by advocates falls within the mandate of the respondents.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the applicant, a practicing advocate, had demonstrated a credible apprehension of arbitrary arrest and detention by the respondents based on social media allegations linking her law firm to a fraudulent scheme. The applicant had not been summoned or given an opportunity to be heard, and there was evidence of similar arbitrary action against another advocate. The court held that anticipatory bail is available to protect constitutional rights to liberty and due process where there is a real threat of unlawful arrest. Furthermore, the regulation of legal fees for advocates is the preserve of the Law Society of Kenya and the Advocates Act, not the police. The respondents...
Court Disposition
application allowed
Orders
- A conservatory order is issued restraining the respondents from interfering with the applicant's person without conducting investigations and according her an opportunity to be heard, including issuing summons for appearance and statement recording if necessary.
- The applicant is granted anticipatory bail/bond of Kshs. 100,000 on condition of compliance with all official summons issued by the respondents.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
27 paragraphs
Christine Ouko Angado & Co Advocates v Inspector General National Police Service & another (Criminal Miscellaneous Application E141 of 2024) [2025] KEHC 6378 (KLR) (5 May 2025) (Ruling)
Neutral citation: [2025] KEHC 6378 (KLR)
Republic of Kenya
In the High Court at Kiambu
Criminal Miscellaneous Application E141 of 2024
DO Chepkwony, J
May 5, 2025
Between
Christine Ouko Angado & Co Advocates
Applicant
and
Inspector General National Police Service
1st Respondent
Directorate Criminal Investigation
2nd Respondent
Ruling
1. What is before this court for determination is the Notice of Motion application dated 27th November, 2024 which seeks the following orders:a.Spent.b.Spent.c.Spent.d.This Honourable Court be pleased to issue a conservatory order restraining the Respondents whether acting jointly or severally by themselves or their servants, agents, representatives or howsoever otherwise from interfering with the Applicants person without conducting investigations and according to her an opportunity to be heard to wit issuing with her summons for her to appear at any offices to record statement(s) if need be.e.That this Honourable Court does issue such further orders that in its discretion may deem fair and just in the circumstances.f.That the costs of this application be in the cause.
2. The Application is based on the grounds set out on its face and the affidavit in support thereof sworn by Christine Ouko Angado on the instant date. According to the deponent, she is an advocate of the High Court of Kenya having been admitted under Admission No.P.105/16769/19 and holds current Practicing Certificate for the year 2024 Certificate of Good Conduct/Standing both issued by the Law Society of Kenya.
3. That the Applicant practises her law career under the name and style of Ouko Angado Co. Advocates as a sole proprietorship where she employs other advocates.
4. It is the Applicant’s contention that she has dutifully discharged her duties with fidelity to the law and full compliance to the Constitution of Kenya, 2010 and The Advocates Act together with all other enabling laws.
5. The Applicant has deponed therein that on 6th November, 2024, she was surprised to see the name of her Law Firm listed in various social media handles being Facebook and X (Twitter), where it was being linked to a fraudulent scheme where it was being alleged that the Law Firm had conspired to fraudulently obtain over Kshs. 182,000,000/=. According to the Applicant, she has never received any Summons or call to appear before any of the Respondents or failed to honour either, and thus she does not understand why they should only be looking to arrest her. She only learnt that the allegations related to services by the various Law Firms and are hinged to fees paid in relation to services rendered by each one of them.
6. The Applicant goes on to state that as an advocate, she has a right to earn legal fees for services rendered and the Respondents have no right to regulate the same since that is only under the confines of the Law Society of Kenya and the Advocates Act.
7. It is the Applicant’s contention that she received information that there are officers who have planned to visit her residence and or Law Firm with intention to arbitrarily capture and arrest her for questioning and detaining her without arraigning her in court over the weekend. And indeed, one of the advocates mentioned in the post has been arbitrarily arrested and released after questioning on legal fees he received for services earlier rendered to the same client.
8. She holds that Sections 123A and 124 of the Criminal Procedure Act provide guidelines of bail and bond and contends that she will abide by any and or all conditions that the court will grant and attend court to its logical conclusion. She thus seeks the court to grant her free anticipatory bail/bond.
9. Through the Prosecution’s Counsel, the Respondents indicated that they are not opposed to the application and for that reason, the court proceeds to allow the Notice of Motion application dated 27th November, 2025.
10. Consequently, the following orders issue:-a.A conservatory order is hereby issued restraining the Respondents whether acting jointly or severally by themselves or their servants, agents, representatives or howsoever otherwise from interfering with the Applicants person without conducting investigations and according to her an opportunity to be heard to wit issuing with her summons for her to appear at any offices to record statement(s) if need be.b.The Applicant is hereby granted Anticipatory Bail/bond of Kshs.100,000/= on condition that she complies with all official summons issued by the Respondents.c.Mention on 30th June, 2025 for parties to confirm status of investigations, if any and take further directions.It is so ordered.
RULING DELIVERED VIRTUALLY, DATED AND SIGNED AT KIAMBU THIS 5TH DAY OF MAY, 2025. D. O. CHEPKWONYJUDGEIn the presence of:M/S Ndeda counsel for the RespondentsNo appearance for and by the ApplicantCourt Assistant - Martin