[2024] KEHC 5362 (KLR)
The court found that the applicant did not provide any cogent reason to justify interference with the investigative and prosecutorial powers of the respondents. The mere existence of a recommendation to charge and the applicant's correspondence with the DPP did not amount to grounds for anticipatory bail. The court...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2024] KEHC 5362 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Astarico Omariba Moriasi; Respondent: Director Of Public Prosecutions; Respondent: Director Of Criminal Investigations; Respondent: The Inspector General Of Police
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Miscellaneous Application E033 of 2024
- Procedural Posture
- Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application for Anticipatory Bail
- Outcome
- application dismissed
- Judges
- LN Mutende
- Legal Topics
- Anticipatory Bail, Prosecutorial Discretion, Investigative Powers, False Pretence, Interference With Investigation
- 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
Astarico Omariba Moriasi
Applicant
Director Of Public Prosecutions
Respondent
Director Of Criminal Investigations
Respondent
The Inspector General Of Police
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application for Anticipatory Bail
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the applicant is entitled to anticipatory bail pending arrest and charging.
- 2 Whether the court should interfere with the investigative and prosecutorial powers of the respondents in the absence of cogent reasons.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the applicant did not provide any cogent reason to justify interference with the investigative and prosecutorial powers of the respondents. The mere existence of a recommendation to charge and the applicant's correspondence with the DPP did not amount to grounds for anticipatory bail. The court emphasized that it should not interfere with ongoing investigations or prosecutorial decisions unless there is clear evidence of abuse of process or violation of rights, which was not demonstrated in this case. Consequently, the application for anticipatory bail was dismissed.
Court Disposition
application dismissed
Orders
- The application for anticipatory bail is dismissed.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
27 paragraphs
Moriasi v Director of Public Prosecutions & 2 others (Miscellaneous Application E033 of 2024) [2024] KEHC 5362 (KLR) (Crim) (30 April 2024) (Ruling)
Neutral citation: [2024] KEHC 5362 (KLR)
Republic of Kenya
In the High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
Criminal
Miscellaneous Application E033 of 2024
LN Mutende, J
April 30, 2024
Between
Astarico Omariba Moriasi
Applicant
and
Director Of Public Prosecutions
1st Respondent
Director Of Crminal Investigations
2nd Respondent
The Inspector General Of Police
3rd Respondent
Ruling
1. Astarico Omariba Moriasi, the Applicant, through an application dated 22nd January, 2024, seeks to be admitted to anticipatory bail/bond on reasonable terms pending arrest and charging in any court of competent jurisdiction and a conservatory order restraining the Respondents from interfering with his liberty.
2. The application is opposed because the applicant is to be charged with the offence of obtaining money , Ksh, 1,309,554/- with false pretence contrary to Section 313 of the Penal Code, having duped the complainant in the matter that he was capable of purchasing for him a motor vehicle. That sufficient evidence was gathered and the 1st Respondent has recommended charging of the applicant.
3. I have considered the application, affidavits in support and opposition, and, rival submissions of Counsel for the parties. In the case of Republic vs Chief Magistrate Milimani & Another, Exparte Tusker Mattresses Ltd & 3 Others [2013] eKLR, it was stated as follows:“... The Court must in such circumstances take care not to trespass into the jurisdiction of the investigators or the Court which may eventually be called upon to determine the issues hence the Court ought not to make determinations which may affect the investigations or the yet to be conducted trial. That this Court has power to quash impugned warrants cannot be doubted. However, it is upon the ex parte applicant to satisfy the Court that the discretion given to the police to investigate allegations of commission a criminal offence ought to be interfered with. It is not enough to simply inform the Court that the intended trial is bound to fail or that the complaints constitute both criminal offence as well as civil liability. The High Court ought not to interfere with the investigative powers conferred upon the police or the Director of Public Prosecution unless cogent reasons are given for doing so.”
4. The applicant does not dispute the fact that there is a recommendation to have him charged. His argument is that he has written a letter to the DPP seeking a comprehensive review of the charge. According to him the charge has no basis.
5. This is a matter where this court is being called upon to interfere with charging of a person where a question has been established to be answered by the individual. The court should not be seen to be interfering with the investigative and prosecutorial powers of the respondents unless there is a cogent reason which is non-existent herein. There is no ground for grant of anticipatory bail.
6. In the result, the application herein fails. Accordingly, it is dismissed.
7. It is so ordered.
DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED VIRTUALLY THROUGH MICROSOFT TEAMS AT NAIROBI, THIS 30THDAY OF APRIL, 2024. L. N. MUTENDEJUDGEIn The Presence Of:Ms. Odembo holding brief for Mr. Mutuma for ODPPCourt Assistants – Habiba/ Fatuma/Hadija