[2016] KEHC 7666 (KLR)
The court found that the application for stay of its orders requiring the applicants to attend court for plea taking was not meritorious. The existence of a parallel civil case did not bar the Director of Public Prosecutions from instituting criminal proceedings against the applicants. The reliefs sought under...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2016] KEHC 7666 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: John Mugo Njeru; Applicant: Mary Wanjiru Bernard; Applicant: Daimler Enterprises Limited; Applicant: Double Clean Limited; Applicant: Ruora Investments Limited; Applicant: Marstons Enterprises Limited; Applicant: Nginyo Roadways Limited; Respondent: Director of Public Prosecutions; Respondent: Directorate of Criminal Investigations
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Criminal Revision 194 of 2015
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Revision / Ruling on Application for Stay of Orders Pending Appeal
- Outcome
- application dismissed
- Judges
- LK Kimaru
- Legal Topics
- Stay of Proceedings, Criminal Plea, Jurisdiction of Dpp, Parallel Civil and Criminal Proceedings
- 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
John Mugo Njeru
Applicant
Mary Wanjiru Bernard
Applicant
Daimler Enterprises Limited
Applicant
Double Clean Limited
Applicant
Ruora Investments Limited
Applicant
Marstons Enterprises Limited
Applicant
Nginyo Roadways Limited
Applicant
Director of Public Prosecutions
Respondent
Directorate of Criminal Investigations
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Criminal Revision / Ruling on Application for Stay of Orders Pending Appeal
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the court should stay its orders requiring the applicants to attend court for plea taking pending appeal.
- 2 Whether the existence of a parallel civil case bars criminal proceedings against the applicants.
- 3 Whether the applicants are entitled to relief under Sections 356 and 357 of the Criminal Procedure Code.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the application for stay of its orders requiring the applicants to attend court for plea taking was not meritorious. The existence of a parallel civil case did not bar the Director of Public Prosecutions from instituting criminal proceedings against the applicants. The reliefs sought under Sections 356 and 357 of the Criminal Procedure Code were not available to the applicants in the circumstances, and there were no special circumstances justifying the grant of a stay. The court further held that the decision on whom to charge is within the exclusive discretion of the DPP, and the applicants' contention that they hold a genuine title deed is a matter to be canvassed...
Court Disposition
application dismissed
Orders
- The application dated 29th February, 2016 is dismissed.
- No orders as to costs.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
34 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT NAIROBI
CRIMINAL DIVISION
CRIMINAL REVISION NO. 194 OF 2015
JOHN MUGO NJERU……….………..………..……..…………..1ST APPLICANT
MARY WANJIRU BERNARD………..……………...…………..2ND APPLICANT
DAIMLER ENTERPRISES LIMITED………………..…...……..3RD APPLICANT
DOUBLE CLEAN LIMITED..………..…………………...….…..4TH APPLICANT
RUORA INVESTMENTS LIMITED..……………...…….……....5TH APPLICANT
MARSTONS ENTERPRISES LIMITED….……..…….………...6TH APPLICANT
NGINYO ROADWAYS LIMITED…..……...…….………….…..7TH APPLICANT
VERSUS
DIRETOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS……………………..1ST RESPONDENT
DIRECTORATE OF CRIMINAL INVESTIGATIONS….....…2ND RESPPONDENT
RULING
By Notice of Motion dated 29th February, 2016, the Applicants seek the following two main prayers, namely:
That this court stays its own orders given on 25th February, 2016 requiring the 1st and 2nd Applicants to attend court on 2nd March, 2016 for purposes of taking plea in criminal case no. 1203 of 2015.
That the court be pleased to stay its decision given in Cr. Case No. 1203 of 2015 pending the hearing and determination of an intended appeal against the decision of this court given on 25th February 2015.
The main grounds on which the application is premised are that the Applicants intend to prefer an appeal against this court’s entire ruling of 25th February, 2016, that the appeal being arguable if the ruling of this court of 25th February, 2016 is not stayed, the appeal is likely to be rendered nugatory, that orders given in the ruling of 25th February, 2016 conflict with other orders issued in High Court Environment and Land Court Case No. 219 of 2015 in which the subject matter is the same as in the instant case, that the order issued by this court is likely to be misused by Jambo Holdings Limited who is a party in the land case and that it is the Applicants right to be accorded an opportunity to defend the land case.
I wish to make it clear from the outset that this ruling is given in brief due to time constraints to write a comprehensive ruling. In the last few days I have been on sick off and between 11th and 22nd April, 2016, I shall be at Eldoret High Court on official duties. A comprehensive ruling will be delivered on 11th May, 2016.
I have accordingly considered the rival submissions that were made before me on 18th March, 2016. It is important I emphasize that all the issues that were raised by the parties herein were well canvassed in my ruling of 25th February, 2016. I gave candid reasons why the subsistence of the civil case is not a bar to the Director of Public Prosecutions filing a criminal case against the 1st and 2nd Applicants herein. I also demarcated in that ruling what issues this court cannot interfere with as they are in the realm for determination by the civil court.
Be that as it may, I wish to point out that the provisions of the law under which this application was brought being Sections 356 and 357 of the Criminal Procedure Code cannot avail the Applicants the reliefs they are seeking. There also do not exist any special circumstances that would warrant the granting of the reliefs sought. Further, with regard to whether Jambo Holdings Limited should have been charged alongside the 1st and the 2nd Applicants, is a decision exclusively to be arrived by the DPP. This court is not an investigator and cannot interfere with the duties of the DPP. However, any person with a complaint against Jambo Holdings Limited is at liberty to file the same with the police after which investigations will follow. Furthermore, the contention by the Applicants that they ought not to have been charged because they hold a genuine title deed is an issue they shall canvass at the trial. It is in the trial that they will be accorded the opportunity to challenge the case for the prosecution.
In the premises, I hold that the application is not meritorious and the same is hereby dismissed with no orders of costs.
DATED and SIGNEDthis 8thday of April, 2016
G.W. NGENYE-MACHARIA
JUDGE
Deliveredthis 18th Day of April 2016
L. KIMARU
JUDGE
In the presence of:
Kavula for Nyang’au for the Applicants
Ms. Atina for the Respondents
Mr. Mwangi for Jambo Holdings Limited (previously 10th Respondent)
No apperance for the Chief Magistrate’s Court at Kiambu and Nairobi and the Chief Lands Registrar (previously 1st , 2nd, and 11th Respondents respectively)