[2001] KEHC 228 (KLR)
The court found that the dispute concerning the ownership and transactions relating to the property formerly known as Umoja 1-D-84 is fundamentally a civil matter, as evidenced by the existence of ongoing civil suits and decrees. The criminal proceedings were improperly initiated, contrary to the advice of the...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2001] KEHC 228 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Mary Wanjiru Njuguna; Applicant: Njuguna Njoroge; Respondent: Republic; Respondent: Hon. The Attorney General
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Commercial Courts)
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Criminal Application 201 of ??
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Application / Ruling on Consolidated Applications for Prohibition
- Outcome
- Applications allowed. Prohibiting order granted.
- Legal Topics
- Abuse of Process, Ownership Disputes, Prohibition Orders, Criminal Vs Civil Remedies
- 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
Mary Wanjiru Njuguna
Applicant
Njuguna Njoroge
Applicant
Republic
Respondent
Hon. The Attorney General
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Criminal Application / Ruling on Consolidated Applications for Prohibition
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the criminal proceedings against the applicants constitute an abuse of the court's process.
- 2 Whether the dispute over the property is essentially a civil matter and not appropriate for criminal prosecution.
- 3 Whether a prohibiting order should be granted to restrain further hearing of the criminal case.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the dispute concerning the ownership and transactions relating to the property formerly known as Umoja 1-D-84 is fundamentally a civil matter, as evidenced by the existence of ongoing civil suits and decrees. The criminal proceedings were improperly initiated, contrary to the advice of the Director of Public Prosecutions, and amounted to an abuse of the criminal process. The court held that the criminal jurisdiction had been wrongly invoked by the police, and that the appropriate forum for resolving the dispute was the civil court. Consequently, the court granted a prohibiting order restraining the Chief Magistrate or any other Magistrate from hearing or further...
Court Disposition
Applications allowed. Prohibiting order granted.
Orders
- A prohibiting order is granted restraining the Chief Magistrate, Nairobi or any other Magistrate from hearing or further entertaining Criminal Case No. 787 of 2000, Republic vs Njuguna Njoroge and Mary Wanjiru Njuguna.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
23 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT NAIROBI CRIMINAL DIVISION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 201 OF 2000
MARY WANJIRU NJUGUNA ……………………………… APPLICANT
VERSUS
REPUBLIC …………………………………………………….. RESPONDENT
CONSOLIDATED WITH
CRIMINAL DIVISION
CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 202 OF 2000
NJUGUNA NJOROGE ………………………………… APPLICANT
VERSUS
HON. THE ATTORNEY GENERAL ………………….. RESPONDENT
R U L I N G
Criminal Application No. 201/2000 has been consolidated with Criminal Application No. 202/2000.
The 2nd applicant, NJUGUNA NJOROGE and the 1st applicant, MARY WANJIRU NJUGUNA, are husband and wife respectively. They are jointly charged before the Chief Magistrate’s court in Criminal Case No.787/2000 with various offences relating to a house in Umoja I Estate, Nairobi formerly known as Umoja 1 – D 84 which belonged to the 2nd applicant, NJUGUNA, which he later sold to one JOSEPH MURIITHI NJERU, the complainant in the said Criminal case for Kshs.530,000/=.
When MARY WANJIRU (1st Applicant) learnt of the said transaction between her husband and Joseph Muriithi Njeru without her consent she moved to the High Court in Civil Case No.5913 of 1993 against her husband and High Court Civil Case No. 4539/94 against Joseph Muriithi Njeru to have the said transaction set aside. She obtained a decree in her favour whereupon the said property was registered in her name and she was issued with a lease for 99 years by the Nairobi City Council in respect of that property registered as TITLE NO. NAIROBI/BLOCK 109/1/346. She then sold the said property to one SARAH KEMUMA OSIEMO for Kshs.950,000/= who took possession of the said house and is in occupation of the same upto this day.
In the meantime, JOSEPH MURIITHI NJERU, the complaint in the Criminal Case, acting on his earlier sale agreement with NJUGUNA in respect of the said property, managed to challenge the lease issued to MARY WANJIRU by the Nairobi City Council. The Council then revoked the said lease and caused a new leas in respect of the said property to be issued in his favour as TITLE NO: NAIROBI/UMOJA BLOCK 109/268/346. He then charged the said property with a Bank and obtained Kshs.100,000/=. Thereafter he commenced the criminal proceedings against the 1st and 2nd respondent.
The position of the Attorney General with regard to the pending criminal case against the 1st and 2nd applicants has been clearly stated before this court by Mr. Horace Okumu, the Learned Senior Principal State Counsel. He told the court that after the said charges had been preferred against the applicants in the Chief Magistrate’s Criminal Case No. 787/2000, the Attorney General called for the police file for perusal and advice. The same was perused by the learned Director of Public Prosecutions, Mr. Bernard chunga (now Chief Justice) who advised that the complainant, Joseph Muriithi Njeru that he should should persue his remedy in a civil court. It was not the intention of the Attorney General that the state should pursue the criminal proceedings against the two applicants, Mr. Njuguna Njoroge and his wife Mary Wanjiru on the available evidence as contained in the police file. Mr. Okumu was at a loss as to how the said charges came to be preferred against the applicants. He had this to say:-
“The former D.P.P advised that the complainant should persu e a civil remedy in court. How these charges came to be preferred by the police against the applicants I cannot understand”.
I have considered all the matters that were urged before me in the affidavits of the parties and counsel submissions. I am satisfied that the dispute revolving upon the ownership of the property formerly known as UMOJA 1-D-84 is essentially a civil matter between all the parties involved and that the Criminal Jurisdiction of the court has been improperly invoked by the police. Indeed there are before the High Court Civil Suits No.5913/93 and 4539/94 where the matters in dispute can be ventilated and resolved.
For reasons stated, I allow the respective applications filed by the applicants on the 29th of June, 2000 and do hereby grant a prohibiting order restraining the Chief Magistrate, Nairobi or any other Magistrate from hearing or in any manner further entertaining Criminal Case No. 787 of 2000, Republic vs Njuguna Njoroge and Mary Wanjiru Njuguna.
It is so ordered.
Dated and delivered at Nairobi this 30th day of May, 2001.
S.O OGUK
JUDGE