[2023] KEHC 26079 (KLR)

Olima & another v Director of Public Prosecutions; Independent Policing Oversight Authority (IPOA) & another (Interested Parties) (Criminal Petition E003 of 2022) [2023] KEHC 26079 (KLR) (30 November 2023) (Judgment)

Neutral citation: [2023] KEHC 26079 (KLR)

Republic of Kenya

In the High Court at Meru

Criminal Petition E003 of 2022

EM Muriithi, J

November 30, 2023

IN THE MATTER OF: CHAPTER 4 – THE BILL OF RIGHTS OF THE CONSTITUTION OF KENYA (2010) AND IN THE MATTER OF: ARTICLES 20,21, 22, 23, 157(11) & 165 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF KENYA (2010) AND IN THE MATTER OF: ALLEGED CONTRAVENTION OF FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS & FREEDOMS UNDER ARTICLE 47 & 50 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF KENYA

Between

John Olima

1st Petitioner

Urbanus Kivilu

2nd Petitioner

and

The Director Of Public Prosecutions

Respondent

and

Independent Policing Oversight Authority (IPOA)

Interested Party

Sarah Mwakairu M’limbere

Interested Party

Judgment

1. The 1st and 2nd Petitioners herein, through their Petition dated 16th May, 2022, seek the following orders:a.A declaration that the petitioners’ right to a fair Judicial process under Article 50 of the Constitution shall be infringed by the Respondent if allowed to perpetuate the arrest, detention, charge and prosecution of the Applicants based on the events of 12th March, 2016 at 2300Hrs related/incidental or axillary thereto.b.A declaration that the Respondent shall infringe the Petitioners’ right to an Administrative Action that is lawful, reasonable and procedurally fair under Article 47 of the Constitution if allowed to arrest, charge and prosecute the petitioners based on the events of 12th March, 2016 at 2300Hrs related/incidental or axillary thereto.c.An order of permanent injunction against the Respondents, his agents, servants and/or any other person acting on his behalf or behest and/or direction from charging and/or prosecuting the petitioners based on the events of 12th March, 2016 at 2300Hrs related/incidental or axillary thereto.d.Costs of this petition.

The Petitioners’ Case 2. The Petitioners’ case is that they are both police officers. The 1st Petitioner is a police inspector currently attached to Gathong’ora police station as the Deputy OCS and the 2nd Petitioner is attached at Githongo police station in the rank of police constable. The Petitioners aver that on 12th March, 2016 at 2300H, they answered a distress call by a watchman who had allegedly been accosted by robbers while on the way from Kangeta and Muringene Police Posts to pick prisoners. That in a bid to rescue the watchman, the Petitioners shot dead one suspected robber and injured another by the name Edward Kimathi. They claimed that the other suspect who was armed escaped.

3. That consequently, the said watchman made a report of the incident at Maua Police Station and a report was recorded. That upon conclusion of the investigation, one Edward Kimathi who sustained gunshot injuries was arraigned in court in Maua Chief Magistrate Court Criminal Case No. 858 of 2016, Republic v Edward Kimathi on recommendation of the Respondent. That the said accused was in the end acquitted on 9th September, 2017 for non-attendance of the complainant under the provisions of Section 202 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 75 of the Laws of Kenya).

4. The Petitioners claim that the Respondent has now directed its agents to arrest, charge, arraign and prosecute the Petitioners in court based on the aforesaid events of 12th March, 2016 at 2300Hrs. According to the Petitioners, the said decision of the Respondent will infringe on the Petitioner’s right to a fair administrative action under Article 47 of the Constitution and a fair judicial process under Article 50 of the Constitution hence the institution of the instant petition.

5. The Petitioners further claim that as at the time the instant petition was instituted, it had been 6 years from the events of 12th March, 2016 and that the delay by the Respondent and their pending arrest was in contravention of the principles of the Constitution.

The Respondent’s Case 6. The Respondent’s (“DPP’s) case is encapsulated in the Replying Affidavit sworn on 20th September, 2022 by Brenda N. Nandwa, a prosecution counsel for the Respondent.

7. The DPP contends that the 1st Interested Party (IPOA), whose mandate include investigating of any complainants related to disciplinary or criminal offences committed by any member of the National Police Service, conducted their investigations and forwarded their findings and recommendations to the DPP.

8. That upon perusal of the findings and recommendations of IPOA, the DPP independently made a decision to charge the Petitioners with the offence of murder of David Karimi and another charge of grievous harm of Edward Kimathi.

9. It is the DPP’s contention is that the Petitioners are raising their defences through a constitutional petition but they have not demonstrated that in making the decision to prefer criminal charges against them, the DPP acted without or in excess of the powers conferred upon the office by law or that it has infringed, violated, contravened or in any manner failed to comply with or respect and observe the provisions of the Constitution. That the Petitioners have not demonstrated any violation of the Constitution by the DPP and that therefore, it is in the public interest for the DPP to be left to exercise its constitutional powers and mandate without any interference.

10. The DPP contend that the instant petition is being used solely to forestall the intended charging and prosecution of the Petitioners. It is thus the DPP’s case that the Petition should be dismissed, the Petitioners charged and the matter taken before a criminal court for trial whereby the Petitioners will have a full opportunity to defend themselves and adduce whatever evidence they deem necessary at the trial.

The 1st Interested Party’s Case 11. The 1st Interested Party’s (IPOA’s) case is contained in the Replying Affidavit sworn on 6th September, 2022 by Judith Kawira, an investigator at IPOA.

12. IPOA contends that on 15th March, 2016, the Daily Nation Newspater published a story about a fatal shooting of David Kirimi and serious occasioned on Edward Kimathi by a police officer from Maua Police Station. That following the said media reports, IPOA on its own motion, an in execution of its mandate, initiated investigations into the matter.

13. The said Judith Kawira deposed that in the course of the investigations, she interviewed witnessed and obtained documentary evidence which established that on the night of 12th March, 2016, the 2nd Petitioner shot and killed David Kirimi (the “deceased”) and in the same transaction, shot and caused serious injuries on Edward Kimathi. That the evidence on record pointed to the fact that at all times during the incident, the 1st Petitioner was in the company of the 2nd Petitioner.

14. IPOA avers that upon conclusion of its investigations and in compliance with Section 29(1)(a) of the Independent Policing Oversight Authority Act, it forwarded the file together with its findings and recommendations to the DPP for perusal and advice.

15. That the DPP consequently reviewed the file and evidence independently and recommended that the 2nd Petitioner be charged with the offence of murder contrary to Section 203 as read with Section 204 of the Penal Code and the offence of grievous harm contrary to Section 234 of the Penal Code. That in addition, the DPP recommended that the 1st Petitioner should also be charged with the offence of accessory to murder contrary to Section 222 of the Penal Code.

16. IPOA explained that the delay in concluding its investigations into the matter was occasioned by the complexity of the matter given that two offences were committed in the same transaction. Further, that it took a long to trace some of the witnesses so as to record their statements as they had felt threatened and intimated by the Petitioners and fled the area.

17. It is thus IPOA’s case that the Petitioners are raising their defences and mitigation through this petition and their respective affidavits in support thereto. That by raising their defence and mitigation before this Court, the Petitioners are asking the Court to usurp the role of the trial court which according to IPOA is an abuse of the court process. That it is only fair and just that the trial of the Petitioners should proceed.

The 2nd Interested Party’s Case 18. The 2nd Interested Party’s case is contained in the Replying Affidavit sworn on 27th July, 2022 by Sarah Mwakairu M’Limbere (the 2nd Interested Party).

19. The 2nd Respondent deposed that she is the mother of the deceased, who died from a gunshot wound inflicted by the 2nd Petitioner on 12th March, 2016. That at the material time, her and her family received reports that the deceased was shot by police officers from Maua Police Station during an attempted case of robbery within Kaciongo area. That the family was unconvinced by this version of the story and started investigations into the matter. That subsequently, she learnt that IPOA had taken over the investigations over the shooting incident after public uproar.

20. It is the 2nd Interested Party’s case that her deceased son was a victim of crime and that his right as a victim of crime accrued through the acts of the Petitioners. Further, that the Petitioners are merely attempting to forestall the rights of her family to access justice for the death of the deceased. The 2nd Interested Party thus urges this court to dismiss the Petition with costs stating the Petitioners have neither demonstrated infringement of any of their rights nor established any grounds to warrant the grant the reliefs sought in the instant petition.

The Submissions 21. The Petition was disposed of by way of written submissions.

The Petitioners’ Submissions 22. The Petitioners filed their submissions on 12th May, 2023 and subsequent submissions on 15th August, 2023. It is their submission that the administrative action by the DPP to charged and prosecute the Petitioners is unreasonable and has adversely affected them. That the Petitioners acted within the law and the recommendation to prosecute the them is an abuse of the legal process and meant to please the interested parties due to pressure from the public. The Petitioner relied on the case of Hasham Lalji & Another v. Attorney General & 4 Others [2018] eKLR and submitted that the objective of the charges against them is not bonafide but meant to achieve an intention that is contrary to what the criminal justice system stands for.

The Respondent’s Submissions 23. The Respondent filed their submissions on 13th June, 2023. The Respondent associated themselves fully with submissions of the 1st and 2nd Interested Parties and submitted that in order for the Petitioners to succeed in the instant petition, the rules of proof enunciated by the Supreme Court in Communications Commission of Kenya & 5 Others v. Royal Media Services Limited & 5 Others [2014] eKLR must be adhered to. That the Respondent’s decision to charge the Petitioners was based on evidence and that the Respondent did not act contrary to public interest, the interest of the administration of justice, or failed to prevent and avoid abuse of legal process as averred by the Petitioners. Further, that the termination of the intended prosecution of the Petitioners will frustrate the rule of law which this Court must jealously protect.

24. In addition, the Respondent submitted that although this Court has power to intervene in criminal proceedings which are deemed oppressive, vexatious, and an abuse of the court process or amounts to a breach of fundamental rights and freedoms, this power has to be exercised sparingly as it is in the public interest that offenders to any offence are brought to justice. It was thus the Respondent’s submission that in this case, its decision to charge the Petitioners was not oppressive, vexatious, or an abuse of the court process to warrant the intervention of this court.

The 1st Interested Party’s Submissions 25. The 1st Interested Party filed their submissions on 9th June, 2023. It was its submission that the mandate of the 1st Interested Party is provided for under the Independent Policing Oversight Act (the “IPOA Act”) and that it is empowered under the said Act to conduct independent investigations into the conduct of police officers. That upon conclusion of its investigations, the 1st Interested Party is required to forward the investigation file to the Respondent for independent review and advice.

26. The 1st Interested Party submitted that following media reports of this case, the 1st Interested Party, on its own motion, commenced independent investigations into the fatal shooting of David Kirimi and the shooting of Edward Kimathi causing him serious injuries. That upon the conclusion of its investigations, the 1st Interested Party forwarded the investigation file to the Respondent for advice and review as required. That subsequently, the Respondent found that the use of firearms by the Petitioners and their conduct on the material night was unlawful. In the circumstances, it was the Respondent’s finding that the Petitioners should be charged with the offences of murder, causing grievous harm, among other offences.

27. It was further the 1st Interested Party’s submission that the Petitioners were misleading this Court by bringing up Criminal Case No. 858 of 2016. That firstly, Edward Kimathi has his day in Court and the trial court acquitted him pursuant to Section 202 of the Criminal Procedure Code. That in any event, had the trial court found a guilty verdict against the said Edward Kimathi, this would not have stopped the Petitioners from being prosecuted for the unlawful use of firearms on the material night. It was thus the submission of the 1st Interested Party that the Petitioners are attempting to distract this Court from the main issue herein which according to it, it is whether the Petitioners should be charged as recommended by the Respondent following the independent investigations of the 1st Interested Party.

28. On whether this Court should grant the orders sought by the Petitioners, it is submission of the 1st Interested Party that the Petitioners have not demonstrated how their rights have been, are, or will be infringed by the intended prosecution. Further, that this Petition is only meant to hinder the victims and their families from enjoying their right to access justice as provided under Article 48 of the Constitution and under the Victims Protection Act No. 17 of 2014. The 1st Respondent thus urged this Court to dismiss the Petition in its entirety.

The 2nd Interested Party’s Submissions 29. The 2nd Interested Party filed their submissions on 8th June, 2023. It was the submission of the 2nd Interested Party that both the IPOA and the DPP were well within their powers in both the investigation and intended charging of the Petitioners in respect of the death of the 2nd Interested Party’s son. That no evidence has been adduced by the Petitioners to show that the investigations conducted by IPOA were tainted with malice. Further, that the judgment in Maua Chief Magistrate’s Court Criminal Case No. 858 of 2016, R v Edward Kimathi does not invalidate the decision to charge the Petitioners for the death of the 2nd Interested Party’s son. That in any case, Maua Chief Magistrate’s Court Criminal Case No. 858 of 2016, R v Edward Kimathi was a ploy by the Petitioners to cover up their crimes, which ploy was uncovered by the concluded investigations by IPOA.

30. On the issue of delay in finalizing the investigations, it was the submission of the 2nd Interested Party that the length of the delay is not only detrimental to the Petitioners but also the family of the victim. That however, the delay was explained by IPOA and that the reasons given were beyond the control of IPOA. The 2nd Respondent thus submitted that the instant petition should be dismissed with costs as it is merely an attempt to forestall the rights of the victims to access justice for the death of David Kirimi.

Issues For Determination 31. I have considered the instant petition and the affidavits in support and opposition thereto. I have also considered the respective submissions by counsels for the parties. The main issues that arise for determination, in my view, are:a.Whether the instant petition meets the threshold for a constitutional petition; and if so,b.Whether the Respondent has violated or infringed on the Petitioners’ rights that are protected under Articles 47 and 50 of the Constitution.c.Whether the Petitioners have established any ground to warrant the grant of any of the orders sought in the Petition.d.Who should bear the costs of the Petition?

Analysis And Determination A. On Whether The Instant Petition Meets The Threshold For A Constitutional Petition 32. The institution of proceedings alleging constitutional violations is addressed under Article 22(1) of the Constitution which provides that:“Every person has the right to institute court proceedings claiming that a right or fundamental freedom in the Bill of Rights has been denied, violated or infringed, or is threatened.”

33. Further, Article 258(1) of the Constitution reads as follows:“Every person has the right to institute court proceedings claiming that this constitution has been contravened or is threatened with contravention.”

34. The standard of pleading constitutional petitions was enunciated in the case of Anarita Karimi Njeru v Republic [1979] eKLR which was cited as an authority in the Court of Appeal case of Mumo Matemu v Trusted Society of Human Rights Alliance & 5 others [2013] eKLR where the court stressed that:“…if a person is seeking redress from the High Court on a matter which involves a reference to the Constitution, it is important (if only to ensure that justice is done to his case) that he should set out with a reasonable degree of precision that of which he complains, the provisions said to be infringed, and the manner in which they are alleged to be infringed.”

35. In this case, the Petitioners have very clearly and precisely described the gravamen of the Petition as being founded on the events of 12th March, 2016 at 2300Hrs. They have pleaded that the actions and proceedings that followed the said events culminated in the decision of the Respondent to charge them in court, which decision they contend violates their constitutional rights. The Petitioners have also identified Articles 47 and 50 of the Constitution as the constitutional provisions that the Respondent has allegedly infringed or violated warranting the intervention of this Court. In the circumstances, it is my view that the instant petition satisfies the particularity and precision threshold required of constitutional petitions.

B. On Whether The Respondent Has Violated Or Infringed On The Petitioners’ Rights That Are Protected Under Articles 47 And 50 Of the Constitution 36. This Court has a constitutional role to interpret the Constitution and ensure its enjoyment by citizenry through enforcement of the fundamental rights and freedoms provided therein. In interpreting the Constitution, courts ought to uphold and give effect to the letter and spirit of the Constitution by always ensuring that the interpretation is in tandem with the aspirations of the citizens.

37. The Petitioners herein contend that the decision by the DPP to charge and prosecute them based on the events of 12th March, 2016 at 2300Hrs contravenes their constitutional rights, particularly their rights under Articles 47 and 50 of the Constitution. Article 47 of the Constitution provides as follows:“(1)Every person has the right to administrative action that is expeditious, efficient, lawful, reasonable and procedurally fair.(2)If a right or fundamental freedom of a person has been or is likely to be adversely affected by administrative action, the person has the right to be given written reasons for the action.(3)Parliament shall enact legislation to give effect to the rights in clause (1) and that legislation shall—(a)provide for the review of administrative action by a court or, if appropriate, an independent and impartial tribunal; and(b)promote efficient administration.”

38. Article 50(1) of the Constitution provides as follows:“Every person has the right to have any dispute that can be resolved by the application of law decided in a fair and public hearing before a court or, if appropriate, another independent and impartial tribunal or body”

39. The Petitioners challenge the decision to charge and prosecute them in the first place stating that on the material night, they were allegedly executing their mandate as police officers by responding to a distress call by a watchman who was struggling with some robbers when the deceased got shot and died and Edward Kimathi was shot and injured. The Petitioners further questions the intentions behind the delay in commencing their intended prosecution.

40. The legal basis of the exercise of prosecutorial powers in Kenya is based on the Constitution and the law. Article 157 of the Constitution establishes the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions. The mandate of the DPP as per the provisions of Article 157(6)(a) of the Constitution includes the institution and undertaking of criminal proceedings against any person before any court (other than a court martial) in respect of any offence alleged to have been committed.

41. The Office of Director of Public Prosecutions Act No. 2 of 2013 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the ODPP Act’) is an Act of Parliament aimed at giving effect to Articles 157 and 158 of the Constitution and other relevant Articles of the Constitution and for connected purposes. Section 4 the of the ODPPAct provides the guiding principles in prosecution of cases as follows:“(4)In fulfilling its mandate, the Office shall be guided by the Constitution and the following fundamental principles—a.the diversity of the people of Kenya;b.impartiality and gender equity;c.the rules of natural justice;d.promotion of public confidence in the integrity of the Office;e.the need to discharge the functions of the Office on behalf of the people of Kenya;f.the need to serve the cause of justice, prevent abuse of the legal process and public interest;g.protection of the sovereignty of the people;h.secure the observance of democratic values and principles; andi.promotion of constitutionalism.”

42. The office of the DPP is an independent constitutional office. Article 157(10) of the Constitution provides that:“The Director of Public Prosecutions shall not require the consent of any person or authority for the commencement of criminal proceedings and in the exercise of his or her powers or functions, shall not be under the direction or control of any person or authority.”

43. The DPP therefore has discretion on the decision to charge. This was indeed affirmed by the Court of Appeal in Diamond Hasham Lalji & another v Attorney General & 4 others [2018] eKLR when it stated at Paragraph 30 that:“…The DPP has formulated “The National Prosecution Policy” 2015 which repealed the 2007 prosecution policy. The policy, amongst other things, stipulates the factors to be taken into account before a decision to prosecute or not to prosecute is taken including the application of evidential test and public interest test and also the factors to be considered before a review of the decision to prosecute or not to prosecute is made.”

44. Despite its independence, the office of the DPP is subject to the control of the court in appropriate instances where illegality, irrationality and procedural impropriety was demonstrated. Under Article 157(11) of the Constitution, the office of the DPP was enjoined in exercising the powers conferred by the provision to have regard to public interest, the interest of the administration of justice and the need to prevent and avoid abuse of the legal process. Interest of the administration of justice dictated that only those whom the DPP believed to have a successfully prosecutable case against them on the available evidence be arraigned in court and those who DPP believed to have no prosecutable case against them be let free. See the decision of this court in Christopher Mbugua Kiiru v. Inspector General of Police & 3 Ors. Mombasa Petition No. 30 of 2014, where the court said:17. While considering a similar application for stay of criminal prosecution, this court dealt with the discretion of the DPP and the impact of Articles 25 and 50 of the Constitution in Mombasa HC Misc. Application No. 77 of 2013, Republic v. Inspector General of Police and 2 Ors. Ex Parte Zelea Jakaa Akiru held that“34. The Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) has constitutional duty to prosecute offences under Article 157 of the Constitution and in the exercise of such mandate, the DPP may use the police investigators and prosecutors as may have happened in this case, and I would, therefore, find that the 2nd respondent acted within his powers to file criminal prosecution. The Prosecution would, of course, be expected to bring charges only where the investigations reveal an offence. However, whether the investigations leading to the arrest and charge of the applicant were properly done, if at all, will be established before the trial court in its decision whether the applicant has a case to answer or whether the prosecution proves the case beyond reasonable doubt upon full hearing in accordance with section 215 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The court cannot, in exercise of its judicial review jurisdiction of Order 53 of the Civil Procedure Rules, consider the merits of the criminal charges facing the applicant and determine whether proper investigations were conducted in the alleged offence, and consequently, whether the applicant is guilty or not guilty as charged.35. Under the criminal trial the applicant will be afforded all the Article 50 rights including the right to a fair trial which is, in accordance with Article 25 of the Constitution, not subject to limitation. If the rights of the applicant are breached in the criminal trial setting, the accused will be at liberty to lodge an appeal on the merits or file a constitutional application for their enforcement and protection. Such is not the application before the court.”18. In my view, the High Court must in determining an application for stay or striking out of criminal proceedings consider four significant matters, namely:a.the rule of law principle underpinning the discretion of the DPP to prosecute criminal cases without undue influence, direction or control by any other authority;b.the need to protect accused persons from violation of their fundamental rights and freedoms through unwarranted criminal prosecution;c.the need to ensure that the criminal process of the court is not abused to further or defeat private interests which are, or should be, the subject of civil proceedings or for other improper purposes; andd.as, an over-arching principle, the existence of fair trial guarantees for accused persons in the criminal process by virtue of Articles 25 and 50 of the Constitution of Kenya, 2010. 19. I have respectfully noted the concurring views of Waki, J. as he then was in Republic v Chief Magistrate's Court, Mombasa ex parte Ganijee & Another[2002] 2 KLR 703, Mulwa, J. in Kuria & 3 Others v AG [2002] 2 KLR 69 and Odunga J, in Republic v Attorney General & 4 Others ex parte Kenneth Kariuki Gathii(2014) eKLR.”See also the decision in Petition No. 523 of 2014 Chiristina Gakuhi Kubai V. Director Of Public Prosecutions & Ors (2017) eKLR on the court’s power over the Prosecutorial mandate of the DPP.

45. In this case, there is no evidence that has been led by the Petitioners to show that the DPP acted with malice or an ulterior motive. There is also no evidence to show that the independence of the DPP was compromised, interfered with or influenced by any person or body. The Petitioners have not challenged the independent investigations that were conducted by the IPOA into the subject incident.

46. The court notes that IPOA actually did afford the Petitioners an opportunity to be heard in the course of its investigations. Subsequently, IPOA, as required by law, forwarded the investigation file to the DPP for advice and recommendation. In the circumstances, the DPP was therefore within its constitutional and statutory mandate in making the decision to charge and prosecute the Petitioners.

47. In the absence of evidence to substantiate the Petitioners’ allegations, I find that Articles 47 and 50 of the Constitution were not violated because independent investigations had been concluded by the investigative agency, IPOA, and the recommendation to prosecute the Petitioner was made independently by the Respondent upon review of the investigation file.

C. Whether The Petitioners Have Established Any Ground To Warrant The Grant Of Any Of The Orders Sought In The Petition 48. As correctly submitted by the Respondent, this Court is not expected in these proceedings to determine the merits of the criminal case against the Petitioners. The mere fact that the there is a likelihood that intended criminal proceedings are bound to fail or that the Petitioners have a good defence in the intended criminal proceeding are matters that ought to be dealt with by the trial court and should not be canvassed in the instant proceedings. In other words, the Petitioners are not expected to turn the present proceedings into a criminal trial.

49. Consequently, the court finds that the Petitioners have failed to demonstrate to this Court how the DPP acted contrary to public interest, the interests of the administration of justice or failed to prevent and avoid abuse of the legal process. It is in the interests of the administration of justice that the intended criminal case against be promptly instituted and heard on merits. It is in the respectful view of the court that the termination of the intended prosecution of the Petitioners in the circumstances of the instant case would frustrate, instead of advance, the rule of law. For this reason, the Court finds that the Petitioners have not made a case for granting any of the reliefs sought in the instant petition.

Conclusion 50. Accordingly, for the reasons set out above, the Court finds that the Petition dated 16th May, 2022 is without merit and makes the following orders:1. The Petition herein dated No. E003 of 2022 together with the Notice of Motion made thereunder are dismissed.2. The Court does not make any order as to costs.

Order accordingly.

DATED AND DELIVERED THIS 30TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2023. EDWARD M. MURIITHIJUDGEAppearances:Mr. Mwanzia for the Petitioners.Mr. Masila for DPP.Ms. Mbugua for the Interested Parties.