[2017] KEHC 7493 (KLR)
The court held that the existence of civil proceedings and injunctive orders in favour of the applicant's wife does not bar the prosecution of the applicant for criminal offences of incitement to violence and malicious damage to property. The applicant cannot rely on civil injunctive orders as a shield against...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2017] KEHC 7493 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Jambrose Kalu Nguya; Respondent: Republic
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Malindi
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Criminal Constitutional Application 10 of 2016
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Constitutional Petition / Ruling on Application for Stay of Proceedings Pending Petition
- Outcome
- application dismissed
- Judges
- SJ Chitembwe
- Legal Topics
- Stay of Proceedings, Parallel Civil and Criminal Proceedings, Incitement to Violence, Malicious Damage to Property
- 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
Jambrose Kalu Nguya
Applicant
Republic
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Criminal Constitutional Petition / Ruling on Application for Stay of Proceedings Pending Petition
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the existence of parallel civil proceedings and injunctive orders can bar criminal prosecution for incitement to violence and malicious damage to property.
- 2 Whether the prosecution of the applicant is in bad faith or an abuse of court process.
- 3 Whether the applicant is entitled to a stay of criminal proceedings pending determination of the petition.
Ratio Decidendi
The court held that the existence of civil proceedings and injunctive orders in favour of the applicant's wife does not bar the prosecution of the applicant for criminal offences of incitement to violence and malicious damage to property. The applicant cannot rely on civil injunctive orders as a shield against criminal liability. The police investigated the matter and found sufficient grounds to charge the applicant. There is no evidence that the prosecution was commenced in bad faith or as an abuse of process. The issues of whether the applicant committed the alleged offences are to be determined by the trial court. Consequently, the application for stay of proceedings lacks merit and is...
Court Disposition
application dismissed
Orders
- The application for stay of proceedings is dismissed.
- The interim orders are vacated.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
23 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA
AT MALINDI
CRIMINAL DIVISION
CRIMINAL CONSTITUTIONAL PETITION NO. 10 OF 2016
(In the matter of an intended Appeal)
BETWEEN
JAMBROSE KALU NGUYA ………………...………… APPLICANT
VERSUS
REPUBLIC …………………………..……………… RESPONDENT
(Intended Appeal from Conviction and Sentence of the Senior Principal Magistrate’s Court at Kilifi in Criminal Case No. 337 of 2016)
RULING
The application dated 30. 09. 2016 seeks a stay of the proceedings in Kilifi Court Criminal Case Number 337 of 2016, REPUBIC V JAMBROSE NGUYA & ANOTHER pending the hearing and determination of the petition. The application is supported by the affidavit of the petitioner. The 1st respondent filed a replying affidavit sworn by inspector Christopher Cherop.
Mr. Obaga, counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Deputy Public Prosecutor (DPP) did not carry out investigations in public interest. The petitioner was not called upon to record his statement and give his side of the dispute. It is submitted that the dispute is grounded on several civil suits that were pending in court. The petitioner had injunctive orders restraining the complainant from interfering with his property. The criminal case relates to the same property. The complainant had been restrained from entering the property.
Mr. Fedha, prosecution counsel, opposed the application. Counsel submitted that section 194 of the Criminal Procedure Act allows both civil and criminal proceedings relating to the same issue to run parallel and at the same time. Civil proceedings cannot bar criminal prosecution. There is enough evidence to charge the petitioner. Incitement to violence is a criminal offence.
I have read the affidavit in support of the application. It is stated that the petitioner’s wife is the registered owner of Plot Number KILIFI/NGERENYE SCHEME/908. The complainant has been trespassing on the land. The petitioner’s wife filed Civil Suit Number 337 of 2016 against the complainant in the criminal case and obtained injunctive orders on 17th July, 2015. The orders were disobeyed and reports were made at the Kilifi police station. Several occurrence Book (OB) numbers have been stated. The petitioner was about to seek court’s intervention through contempt of court proceedings when he was arrested and charged.
The affidavit of Inspector Christopher Cherop indicate that the complainant made a report at the Kilifi police station. The case was investigated and witness statements taken. The petitioner was then charged in court.
The documents annexed to the respective pleadings show that the petitioner’s order of injunction was obtained on 17th July, 2015. The incidents complained of as per the charge sheet occurred on 3rd July, 2016 and 2nd April, 2016. The petitioner is charged with the offence of incitement to violence and disobedience of the law contrary to section 96 of the penal code. The alleged incident occurred on 3rd July, 2016. He is also charged with the offence of malicious damage to property contrary to section 339 (1) of the Penal Code. That incident is alleged to have occurred on the 2nd day of April, 2016.
Although the petitioner had orders of injunction issued in favour of his wife, it could be possible that the orders were disobeyed and the petitioner wanted to remove the complainant from the suit land forcefully. The charge sheet does not give the tile number of the land where the crops were damaged. Even if the court order could have been disobeyed, the petitioner has no powers to effect the orders. The police investigated the case and decided to charge the petitioner. The petitioner cannot rely on the injunctive orders to stop his prosecution. Incitement to violence and malicious damage to property is a crime. An injunctive order is not a licence to destroy other people’s properties. It could be possible that no property was destroyed or that there was no incitement to violence. That issue will be determined by the trial court. The petitioner’s reports to the police will form part of his evidence during the hearing.
Given the pleadings herein, I do find that the prosecution of the applicant is not made in bad faith. The police have a duty to maintain law and order. The application herein lacks merit and is hereby dismissed. The interim orders are vacated.
Dated and delivered in Malindi this 9th day of March, 2017.
S.J. CHITEMBWE
JUDGE