[2025] KEHC 9030 (KLR)
The court declined to issue substantive orders on the application for anticipatory bail and related reliefs because there was no proof that the application had been served on all respondents, particularly the 4th respondent. The court held that service of process is fundamental to ensuring that all parties have an...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2025] KEHC 9030 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Ali Ojo; Respondent: Director of Criminal Investigations; Respondent: Inspector General, National Police Service; Respondent: Office of the Director Public Prosecution; Respondent: Margaret Wanjiru Njuguna
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Kiambu
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Criminal Miscellaneous Application E055 of 2025
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Miscellaneous Application / Interlocutory Application for Anticipatory Bail and Related Orders; Ruling on Service of Application
- Outcome
- Application stood over for service; no substantive orders granted on merits.
- Judges
- DO Chepkwony
- Legal Topics
- Anticipatory Bail, Service of Process, Arrest Procedure
- 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
Ali Ojo
Applicant
Director of Criminal Investigations
Respondent
Inspector General, National Police Service
Respondent
Office of the Director Public Prosecution
Respondent
Margaret Wanjiru Njuguna
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Criminal Miscellaneous Application / Interlocutory Application for Anticipatory Bail and Related Orders; Ruling on Service of Application
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the applicant is entitled to anticipatory bail or bond pending arrest or prosecution.
- 2 Whether the respondents should be restrained from arresting or prosecuting the applicant without sufficient evidence.
- 3 Whether the 4th respondent should be ordered to release the applicant's property.
Ratio Decidendi
The court declined to issue substantive orders on the application for anticipatory bail and related reliefs because there was no proof that the application had been served on all respondents, particularly the 4th respondent. The court held that service of process is fundamental to ensuring that all parties have an opportunity to be heard, which is a cornerstone of fair hearing and due process. The applicant was therefore directed to serve the application on all respondents within three days, with responses to be filed within fourteen days of service. The matter was set for mention to confirm compliance and for further directions. No orders on the merits of the application were made at...
Court Disposition
Application stood over for service; no substantive orders granted on merits.
Orders
- The applicant to serve the respondents with the application within three days.
- Respondents to file responses within fourteen days of service.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
25 paragraphs
Ojo v Director of Criminal Investigations & 3 others (Criminal Miscellaneous Application E055 of 2025) [2025] KEHC 9030 (KLR) (16 May 2025) (Ruling)
Neutral citation: [2025] KEHC 9030 (KLR)
Republic of Kenya
In the High Court at Kiambu
Criminal Miscellaneous Application E055 of 2025
DO Chepkwony, J
May 16, 2025
Between
Ali Ojo
Applicant
and
Director of Criminal Investigations
1st Respondent
Inspector General, National Police Service
2nd Respondent
Office of the Director Public Prosecution
3rd Respondent
Margaret Wanjiru Njuguna
4th Respondent
Ruling
1. What is before this Court for determination is the Notice of Motion application dated 28th March, 2025 which seeks the following orders:-a.Spent.b.That pending the hearing and determination of this interpartes, the Applicant be admitted to anticipatory bail or bond at such reasonable terms and conditions that this Honourable Court may deem just and fit in the circumstances.c.Spent.d.That this Honourable Court be pleased to issue an order to the 1st Respondent not arbitrary ambush and effect arrest of the Applicant, through the use of the offenders from the National Police service under the command of the 2nd Respondent and 3rd Respondent be refrained from commencing any prosecution against the Applicant without having sufficient evidence and facts to support such a process and the 4th Respondent desist from issuing threats through her Mobile Phone Number 0722377659. e.That this Honourable Court orders the immediate release of the applicants the properties being held by the 4th Respondent Margaret Wanjiru Njuguna to the Applicant unconditionally.f.That this Honourable Court be pleased to issue any orders that it may deem fit.
2. The application came up for interparties hearing on 15th April, 2025, whereby the Applicant’s counsel orally submitted on their prayer to court. And even though the counsel for the 3rd Respondent did not object to the prayers being sought, the court having read through the application and perused the record finds that there is no proof of service of the application upon the Respondents, particularly the 4th Respondent, who are crucial parties herein and believe with the information that could be necessary to the just and fair determination of this case.
3. Therefore, before it can delve into the merits of the application, the Court finds it prudent that the Applicant needs to effect service of the application upon the Respondents for a response, if any to be filed for purposes of shedding light to the issues raised herein before any further orders can issue.
4. Therefore: -a.The Applicant to serve the Respondent’s with the application within 3 days for a response to be filed within fourteen (14) days of service.b.Mentioned on …………. to confirm compliance and further directions.It is so ordered.
RULING DELIVERED VIRTUALLY, DATED AND SIGNED AT KIAMBU THIS 16TH DAY OF MAY, 2025. D. O. CHEPKWONYJUDGEIn the presence of:Mr. Hamisi counsel for ApplicantM/S Ndeda counsel for the StateCourt Assistant - Martin