[2009] KEHC 703 (KLR)
The court found that the applicant had not demonstrated a breach or likely breach of his fundamental rights to justify the grant of conservatory orders restraining the police from arresting him. The court emphasized that constitutional reliefs for enforcement of fundamental rights can only be granted against the...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2009] KEHC 703 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: George Ndegwa; Respondent: Esther Nduati Kaleli; Respondent: The Hon. Attorney General
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Constitutional Petition 589 of 2009
- Procedural Posture
- Constitutional Petition / Ruling on Interlocutory Application for Conservatory Orders
- Outcome
- application dismissed
- Judges
- RPV Wendoh
- Legal Topics
- Fundamental Rights Enforcement, Conservatory Orders, Police Powers, Bail Pending Arrest
- 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
George Ndegwa
Applicant
Esther Nduati Kaleli
Respondent
The Hon. Attorney General
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Constitutional Petition / Ruling on Interlocutory Application for Conservatory Orders
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the applicant is entitled to conservatory orders restraining the police from arresting him pending the hearing of the petition.
- 2 Whether the 1st respondent was properly joined as a respondent in a constitutional petition.
- 3 Whether the applicant has demonstrated a breach or likely breach of his fundamental rights to warrant the orders sought.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the applicant had not demonstrated a breach or likely breach of his fundamental rights to justify the grant of conservatory orders restraining the police from arresting him. The court emphasized that constitutional reliefs for enforcement of fundamental rights can only be granted against the State, not private individuals, and that the 1st respondent was improperly joined as a respondent. The Attorney General and police have inherent powers to investigate alleged crimes, and the court should not interfere with these powers unless there is clear evidence of violation of rights. The application was deemed premature as investigations had not yet been conducted, and the...
Court Disposition
application dismissed
Orders
- The application for conservatory orders is disallowed.
- The 1st respondent is struck off as a respondent and may only be enjoined as an interested party.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
25 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA
AT NAIROBI (NAIROBI LAW COURTS)
Petition 589 of 2009
IN THE MATTER OF PROVISIONS OF SECTIONS 70 TO 84(1) BOTH INCLUSIVE OF THE CONSTITUTION OF KENYA
IN THE MATTER OF ALLEGED CONTRAVENTION OF FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS AND FREEDOMS
GEORGE NDEGWA....................................................... PETITIONER
VERSUS
ESTHER NDITI KALELI.......................................... 1ST RESPONDENT
THE HON. ATTORNEY GENERAL.......................... 2ND RESPONDENT
RULING
The Petitioner George Ndegwa has filed the petition dated 7/10/09 under section S3, 60 (1) 65 (2) 84(1) and 123 (8) of the Constitution seeking several declarations against Esther Nduati Kaleli and the Hon. The Attorney General. Filed contemporaneously with the petition is the chamber summons of the same date in which he seeks conservatory orders seeking to restrain the agents of the 2nd Respondent and particularly the police at Ongata Rongai police station from arresting the petitioner or any of his agents pending hearing and determination of this application and that the Applicant be granted bail pending arrest. In his affidavit in support of the application, he depones that he is a Director of Green Plots properties Ltd, which deals in estate management. He acted as an agent of F. Gitonga Gathua in collecting rents and managing a residential property known as Plot 3591 Ongata Rongai, where the 1st Respondent resided. The 1st Respondent failed to pay her rent and the Applicant had instructions to distress (GM 3a). The 1st Respondent was issued with vacation notice and auctioneers were instructed to levy the distress but on going to the house, found that the 1st Respondent had vacated the house. That the 1st Respondent has turned and accused the Applicant and his employees of having broken into her house and stolen. That since then the police officers from Ongata Rongai have been pursuing him and harassing his staff thus paralyzing operations at his office and he cannot move about freely for fear of arrest. That since the Respondent have not countered these depositions by way of affidavit, they should be taken as the truth.
Mr. Onyiso counsel from the State Law office filed grounds of opposition in which he contended that the police are acting within their powers as an offence was allegedly committed by the Petitioner, that fundamental rights are not absolute but are subject to the rights of others and the public interest and no right has been breached.
Since the Respondents have not filed any affidavit to controvert the Applicant’s averments, the court will find that what the Applicant depones to, that the police are camping at his office wanting to arrest him for an alleged offence of breaking into the Interested Party’s house is true.
Constitutional applications and orders made herein can only lie against the State which secure and guarantees personal rights and freedoms of individuals. The 1st Respondent is a private individual who cannot secure or guarantee the Applicant’s right and was wrongly enjoined as a 1st Respondent and is hereby struck off the petition and chamber summons as a Respondent. The 1st Respondent could only have been enjoined as an Interested Party.
Under S 84 of the Constitution, the Court is not concerned with the merits of the case, but whether there is a breach or likely breach of applicants’ rights. The Attorney General has inherent powers to investigate alleged crime. A complaint has been made to the police and this court cannot take away that right unless the Applicant shows that his rights have been, are being or likely to be violated. This court is not seized of the facts of the alleged crime. Whether or not the Applicant overstepped his bounds in performance of his duties and broke into the 1st Respondent’s house has to be established by way of evidence. I cannot just hear from the Applicant even before investigations are done and take it as the gospel truth. The Applicant should allow for investigations to be conducted before the two versions of the dispute can be weighed against each other.
The alleged offence if any, is likely to be a bailable offence and if arrested the Applicant can be released on bail. In my view, this Application is premature and there is not good basis for grant of a conservatory order. The Applicant should allow for investigations otherwise this court will be interfering with the Attorney General’s inherent powers to carry out investigations. For the above reason, I decline to grant any conservatory order and direct that the parties do prepare for the hearing of the petition: This application is disallowed with costs being in the cause.
Dated and delivered at Nairobi this 16th day of November 2009.
R.P.V. WENDOH
JUDGE
Presence:-
Mr. Kounah holding brief for Mr. Ongeri for Petitioner
1st Respondent
2nd Respondent
Muturi court clerk