[2009] KEHC 1382 (KLR)
The court found that the applicant had not demonstrated that he was at risk of unlawful arrest or that the police were abusing their powers. The mere apprehension of arrest, without evidence of malice or abuse, does not warrant anticipatory protection. The police are entitled to investigate and, if they find...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2009] KEHC 1382 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Joel Kiprotich Kimulwa; Respondent: Republic
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Eldoret
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Criminal Miscellaneous Application 66 of 2009
- Procedural Posture
- Miscellaneous Criminal Application / Ruling
- Outcome
- application declined with directions
- Judges
- JL Osiemo
- Legal Topics
- Anticipatory Bail, Police Powers, Arrest and Detention
- 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
Joel Kiprotich Kimulwa
Applicant
Republic
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Criminal Application / Ruling
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the applicant is entitled to anticipatory protection from arrest and prosecution by the police.
- 2 Whether the court can grant orders to prevent the police from investigating or arresting the applicant.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the applicant had not demonstrated that he was at risk of unlawful arrest or that the police were abusing their powers. The mere apprehension of arrest, without evidence of malice or abuse, does not warrant anticipatory protection. The police are entitled to investigate and, if they find sufficient evidence, to arrest and charge the applicant. However, the court directed that if the applicant is arrested and the offence is bailable, he should be released on police bond and required to appear in court as directed. The application for anticipatory protection was therefore declined, but procedural safeguards were put in place to ensure the applicant's rights if arrested.
Court Disposition
application declined with directions
Orders
- If the applicant is arrested and charged, he should be released on police bond if the offence is bailable and appear in court as directed by the police.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
19 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT ELDORET
Miscellaneous Crimnal Application 66 of 2009
JOEL KIPROTICH KIMULWA …………...…………… APPLICANT
VERSUS
REPUBLIC ………………………..………………… RESPONDENT
RULING
Before me is an application by way of Notice of Motion brought by the Applicant under Section 39 and Section 123 of the Criminal Procedure Code Cap. 75 Laws of Kenya in which the Applicant seeks orders:-
(a) That service be dispensed with in the first instance.
(b) That the Honourable Court be pleased to arrest the Applicant/Subject now before the Court.
(c) That this Honourable Court make such orders as it deems fit to protect the Subject/Applicant herein from imminent arrest and incarceration and threats of the prosecution.
In support of the application JOHN KIPROTICH KIMULWA has sworn an affidavit giving grounds. Briefly the facts which gave rise to this application as gathered from the affidavit evidence are as follows.
The Applicant is a member of the African Inland Church (A.I.C) and the Secretary of his local Church. On 11th day of October, 2009 they had a District Church Council (D.C.C) Sunday Service at the African Inland Church Tulwet Local Church; that while the sermon was on going, a group of about thirty (30) people stormed into the Church and disrupted their service; that in the melee that ensued scores of people including himself were injured; that reports were made to the police who arrived at the service and thereafter made arrests; that one Jackson Kipchirchir Yator who was part of the congregation just like himself was arrested on 12th October, 2009 and arraigned in Court on 13th October, 2009 charged with assault; that when he went to Kesses Police Station to make a report, he was threatened with arrest; that he was treated at Uasin Gishu District Hospital but when he went to the Police Station he was denied a P3 Form and was again threatened with arrest; that was reasonable apprehension that the threats of arrest and prosecution are real and that it is fair and just that Honourable Court deems fit to grant him the necessary protection against such threats.
The Applicant’s application is brought under Section 39 and 123 of the Criminal Procedure Code. These sections are applicable under the assumption that cognizable offence has been committed.
The Court must satisfy itself that an offence has been committed before arrest. In the instant case the Applicant denies to have committed any offence and the Court therefore declines to arrest him. All that the Applicant is after is anticipatory protection but the Court cannot prevent the police from carrying out their investigations if they have reasonable suspicion that an offence has been committed. The Police ought to do their investigations and in case they come to the conclusion that an offence has been committed, the Applicant can be arrested and charged.
I order that in the event he is arrested and charged he should be released on police bond if the offence is bailable and to appear in Court on a date as directed by the Police.
Those are the orders of this Court.
DATED AT ELDORET THIS 21ST DAY OF OCTOBER, 2009.
J. L. A. OSIEMO
JUDGE