[2012] KEHC 3473 (KLR)

[2012] KEHC 3473 (KLR)

The court found that the Ethics and Anti-Corruption Commission (EACC) is a body corporate capable of being sued in its own right and that the inclusion of the Attorney General as a respondent was improper. The petitioner's claim that his rights under Article 35 of the Constitution were violated was rejected, as the right to information for an accused person arises at the point of arrest or arraignment, not during investigations. The EACC had complied with the law by conducting investigations and making recommendations to the Director of Public Prosecutions, who has the prosecutorial mandate. The court held that the petitioner was not entitled to all details of the investigation prior to...

Citation
[2012] KEHC 3473 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: Jotham Kilimo Chea; Respondent: Attorney General; Respondent: Ethics and Anti-Corruption Commission
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Mombasa
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Judgment Date
13 June 2012
Case Number
Constitutional Petition 54 of 2012
Procedural Posture
Constitutional Petition / Judgment
Outcome
petition dismissed with costs to the 2nd respondent
Legal Topics
Right to Information, Due Process, Judicial Review of Prosecutorial Discretion, Powers of Commissions
Source Language
English
Constitutional Law Administrative Law Right to Information Due Process Judicial Review of Prosecutorial Discretion Powers of Commissions

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Jotham Kilimo Chea

Applicant

Attorney General

Respondent

Ethics and Anti-Corruption Commission

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Constitutional Petition / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Ethics and Anti-Corruption Commission (EACC) can be sued in its own right under the Constitution and relevant statutes.
  2. 2 Whether the petitioner's rights to information under Article 35 of the Constitution were violated by the respondents.
  3. 3 Whether the petitioner was entitled to be informed of the details of investigations prior to being charged or arraigned in court.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the Ethics and Anti-Corruption Commission (EACC) is a body corporate capable of being sued in its own right and that the inclusion of the Attorney General as a respondent was improper. The petitioner's claim that his rights under Article 35 of the Constitution were violated was rejected, as the right to information for an accused person arises at the point of arrest or arraignment, not during investigations. The EACC had complied with the law by conducting investigations and making recommendations to the Director of Public Prosecutions, who has the prosecutorial mandate. The court held that the petitioner was not entitled to all details of the investigation prior to...

Court Disposition

petition dismissed with costs to the 2nd respondent

Orders

  • The petition is dismissed with costs to the 2nd respondent.