https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/8368

Omwoyo v Inspector General, National Police Service & 3 others (Judicial Review Application E231 of 2024) [2026] KEHC 8368 (KLR) (Judicial Review) (12 June 2026) (Judgment) Neutral citation: [2026] KEHC 8368 (KLR) Republic of Kenya In the High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts) Judicial Review Judicial Review Application E231 of 2024 JM Chigiti, J June 12, 2026 Between Osoro Kennedy Omwoyo Ex parte Applicant and The Inspector General, National Police Service 1st Respondent Director Of Criminal Investigation 2nd Respondent Sub-County, Director of Criminal Investigation officer, Kasarani police Station 3rd Respondent and Office of the Director of Public Prosecution (Odpp) Interested Party Judgment 1.The application that is coming up for determination is the one Notice of Motion dated 19th June, 2025 wherein the Applicant seeks the following orders:-1.An Order of Certiorari to remove into the High Court and quash the 1st, 2nd and 3rd Respondent’s decision to charge the Ex-Parte Applicant on the alleged offence of forgery in regard to Land Parcel No. Ruiru Kiu block 6/537 situated at Ruiru Sub- County, Kiambu County.2.An Order Of Prohibition be issued and be directed at the 1st, 2nd and 3rd Respondents, their Investigators, Officers, Police Officers, CID Officers and/or any other Person(s) and/or authorities acting on their behalf and/or on the instructions of the 1st, 2nd and 3rd Respondents be stopped from arresting, arraigning, Charging and/or prosecuting the Exparte Applicant, in any manner whatever and whatsoever on the alleged offence of forgery and/or any Other offence in regard to Land Parcel No. Ruiru Kiu block 6/537 situated at Ruiru Sub-county, Kiambu County.3.The Court be at liberty to make any such further and other Orders as it deem fit to meet the end of justice.4.That costs of this application be provided for. 2.It is the applicant’s case that on 14th December 2003 his late father entered into a land sale agreement with one James Muchachi Mbugua for the purchase of Plot NO. 87 situated at Tinganga Ruiru block 6 (Gatharaini). 3.His case is that his father paid the consideration and took possession of the land in the year 2007 which he then bequeathed to the him and he has since been utilizing the land. 4.In June/July 2021, the Director of Survey announced that they would survey all parcels of land situated in Githurai Kimbo so as to provide the owners of those parcels of land with Title Deeds. 5.After the survey he was assigned, a new number being Ruiru Kiu block 637. Subsequently on 5th March 2022, he was issued with a Lease by the Ministry of Lands for land parcel No. Ruiru/Kiu/block 637. 6.Thereafter, on 10th June 2022, he was issued with Certificate for Lease for Ruiru/Kiu/block 6/537. 7.To his consternation, on 4th July 2023, one Daniel Nduhiu Wagita and James Mboga being accompanied by hired goons under the Police protection from Kiu Police Post descended on his parcel land No. Ruiru/Kiu/block 637 and unlawful, illegally and without colour of right demolished the barbered wire fence and uprooted fencing posts. 8.On 18th July 2023 he filed moved to Ruiru Law Courts and filed Case No. MCELC/E167/2023 against Daniel Nduhiu Wagita and James Mboga culminating in a Judgement in favour of the Exparte Applicant that was issued on 26th February 2024 followed by a decree. The court found as follows: - 9.A declaration that the plaintiff is the registered and absolute owner and proprietor of all that land LR. No. Ruiru, Kit, block 6/537. 10.A permanent injunction is issued restraining the 1st and 2nd defendants, their agents, employees, servants, servants, assignees and or any other relatives from interfering, alienating, destroying, digging, cultivating, tilting, using, misusing, depleting, intermeddling, grabbing, possessing, claiming, entering, trespassing, demolishing and or flattening the plaintiff’s fence and or utilizing in any way whenever and whatever all that land LR. No. Ruiru Kiu block 6,637. 11.The applicant believes that the purported complainant and the Respondents herein are out to revenge dearly due to his success in MCELC Case No. E167 of 2023 Ruiru Law Courts. 12.On 2nd September 2024, he was summoned to Kasarani DCI on a first information report made by one Daniel Nduhiu Wagita that he obtained Land Parcel No. Ruiru/Kiu/block 6/537 illegally and unlawfully. 13.On the said 2nd September 2024, the Investigating Officer having the conduct of the matter refused to hear his version of the story and even refused to grant him time to produce ownership documents. 14.He was instead bonded to appear in Court on 9th September 2024. 15.It is his case that he has visited Kasarani Police station severally but the Respondents have refused to consider his documentation so as to make a sound judgement whether the Ex-parte Applicant should be charged or not. 16.Driven by the frustration he wrote a letter to the Interested Party complaining of biasness and skewed investigations in view to prosecute Ex-Parte Applicant. 17.The Interested Party having received the letter called for the Police file from the complainants of which the Respondents have refused to surrender to date. 18.He argues that the investigation against him is skewed, malicious and a violation of his freedoms. 19.He argues that the purported complainant and the Respondents herein have not even attached any document to demonstrate and/or to support his/her complaint. 20.He argues that the purported complainant shopped for a police station which was far from the dispute, and where he can manipulate with a view of getting his way and as a result landed at Kasarani Police Station, a place where the purported complainant and the Respondent executed their ulterior motives. 21.He relies in the case of Pastoli vs Kabale District Local Government Council & Others, (2008) 2 EA 300, where it was held that:“In order to succeed in an application for Judicial Review, the applicant has to show that the decision or act complained of is tainted with illegality, irrationality and procedural impropriety: See Council of Civil Service Union v Minister for the Civil Service [1985] AC 2; and also, Francis Bahikirwe Muntu and others v Kyambogo University, High Court, Kampala, Miscellaneous Application Number 643 of 2005 (UR).Illegality is when the decision-making authority commits an error of law in the process of taking the decision or making the act, the subject of the complaint. Acting without Jurisdiction or ultra vires, or contrary to the provisions of a law or its principles are instances of illegality….Irrationality is when there is such gross unreasonableness in the decision taken or act done, that no reasonable authority, addressing itself to the facts and the law before it, would have made such a decision. Such a decision is usually in defiance of logic and acceptable moral standards: Re an Application by Bukoba Gymkhana Club [1963] EA 478 at page 479 paragraph “E”.Procedural impropriety is when there is failure to act fairly on the part of the decision-making authority in the process of taking a decision. The unfairness may be in non-observance of the Rules of Natural Justice or to act with procedural fairness towards one to be affected by the decision. It may also involve failure to adhere and observe procedural rules expressly laid down in a statute or legislative Instrument by which such authority exercises jurisdiction to make a decision. (Al-Mehdawi v Secretary of State for the Home Department [1990] AC 876).” 22.The forgoing accords with Article 47 of the Constitution, which provides for the right to fair administrative action, and Section 7 of the Fair Administrative Action Act in this regard provides that any person who is aggrieved by an administrative action or decision may apply for review of the administrative action or decision. 23.It is his case that the investigations constitute an abuse of the process since they are not carried out independently, good faith and without malice. The investigations are carried under the instructions from above in a well selected Police Station and investigator. 24.Article 165 (6) of the Constitution of Kenya provides as follows: -“The High Court has supervisory jurisdiction over the subordinate courts and over any person, body or authority exercising a judicial or quasi-judicial function, but not over a superior court.” he believes the Court has supervisory jurisdiction over them. 25.It is further his case that Article 165 (7) of the Constitution of Kenya provides as follows: -For the purposes of clause (6), the High Court may call for the record of any proceedings before any subordinate court or person, body or authority referred to in clause (6), and may make any order or give any direction it considers appropriate to ensure the fair administration of justice.” 26.Article 232 (1) of the Constitution of Kenya lays down the values and principles of public service which includes: -“a)high standards of professional ethics;(b)efficient, effective and economic use of resources;(c)responsive, prompt, effective, impartial and equitable provision of services;(d)involvement of the people in the process of policy making;(e)accountability for administrative acts and(f)transparency and provision to the public of timely, accurate information,……..” 27.He argued that the Respondents exceeded the bounds of their genuinely free discretion and as such their acts are ultra vires. 28.He maintains strongly that the Respondent's actions are tainted with irregularities in such a manner that committed an error of law in the process of investigating the complaint which was contrary to the provisions of the law. 29.The decision taken or acts done by the Respondents are of such a nature that no reasonable authority, addressing itself to the facts and the law before it, would have made such a decision. 30.the Respondents did not act fairly in the sense that there existed of non-observance of the rules of natural justice which included acting with procedural unfairness to me. 31.In the end it is his case that the Respondents have improper motive and failed to exercise discretion in their investigations as well as abusing the rules of national justice.The Applicants SubmissionsOmoyo Applicants Submissions Written Submissions 32.The Respondents filed a Replying Affidavit sworn by Benjamin Wangila dated 8th July 2025. 33.He submits that in response to the Replying Affidavit, the Ex-parte Applicant filed a further/supplementary affidavit sworn on 2ndOctober 2025. 34.On 14th December 2003, the Ex-parte Applicant’s biological father namely OSORO OTERO SAMSON (now deceased) bought land from one James Mbugua Plot No. 87 which was exercised from L.R. No. 8867 situated at Githurai Kimbo within Ruiru Sub-County, Kiambu County. 35.The biological father of the Ex-parte Applicant executed a sale agreement with James M. Mbugua in regard to the purchase of the property. 36.On 2nd September 2024, the Ex-Parte Applicant was summoned to Kasarani DCI on a verbal first information report purportedly made by one Daniel Nduhiu Wagita on how Land Parcel No. Ruiru/Kiu/block 6/537 was obtained. The verbal allegations were that the Ex-Parte Applicant obtain the Title through forgery. 37.On the said 2nd September 2024, the Ex-parte Applicant met the Investigating Officer by the name Benjamin Wangila Makokha at their offices at Kasarani. 38.Despite all efforts being made by the Applicant, the said Investigating Officer blatantly refused to accord the Ex-Parte Applicant audience and/or an opportunity to produce his documents. 39.The Ex-parte Applicant was detained in a solitary confinement police cell from 08:00 O’clock in the morning upto 07:00 O’clock in the evening. The Ex-parte Applicant was not provided lunch, water nor an opportunity to take his lunch time medicines. 40.The Ex-parte Applicant was released on a Cash bail of Kshs.50,000/= and a cash bail receipt was issued. The cash bail receipt is marked as Exhibit No. “OKO9” found on Page 61. From the cash bail, the offence indicated was forgery and the Ex-parte Applicant was directed to go to Court on 9th September 2024. 41.On 6th September 2024, the Ex-parte Applicant bond was extended to 2nd October 2024 and further extended to 14th October 2024. 42.The reason for extension of the Police bond was that the Police officers at Kasarani Police Station were waiting orders from above, a clear testimony that Kasarani Police Station had no control over the matter. 43.The Respondents have not attached the documents to this Honourable Court. The purported statement by Duncan Wanyoike in regard to the disputed parcel of land was not shown to the Ex-parte Applicant to the Police Station nor was it attached to these proceedings. 44.Lodging a complaint to ODPP is not to malign investigations but the lawful procedure provided by the law to raise a complaint against the Respondents and in extension, the Police Officers. 45.ODPP under the law does not meddle with investigations as alleged but they have powers to ensure that the 1st, 2nd and 3rd Respondents follow the law. 46.He submits that the Respondents have again come up with other charges being:a.Giving false information to a public servantb.Obtaining land registration by false pretense. 47.He submits that the offence of giving false information to a public servant, nowhere any public servant recorded a statement to support the same. 48.On obtaining land registration by false pretence, no evidence have been submitted to this Honourable Court to support the purported charge nor is there any investigation file. 49.The Respondents failed to disclose the Complainant, the Complaint and the alleged Forged document(s) 50.He submits that the Ex-parte Applicant averred that upon answering Summons on 2ndSeptember 2024 requested for disclosure of the complainant. 51.The Respondents failed to disclose who the Complainant was. This offends the right to a fair hearing as enshrined under Article 50 Rule (2)(b) of the Kenyan Constitution, 2010. Failure to disclose the complaint and the Complainant offends the Provisions of Section 47 of the Constitution and the Fair Administrative Actions Act. 52.Article 47 of the Constitution state as follows: - 53.Every person has the right to administrative action that is expeditious, efficient, lawful, reasonable and procedurally fair. 54.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. 55.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; andb.Promote efficient administration 56.Section 4 Fair Administrative Actions Act. No. 4 of 2015 thereof provided that:- Every person has the right to administrative action which is expeditious, efficient, lawful, reasonable and procedurally fair. Every person has the right to be given written reasons for any administrative action that is taken against him. 57.Where an administrative action is likely to adversely affect the rights or fundamental freedoms of any person, the administrator shall give the person affected by the decision.a.Prior and adequate notice of the nature and reasons for the proposed administrative action.b.An opportunity to be heard and to make representations in that regard.c.An opportunity to be heard and to make representations in that regard.d.Notice of a right to a review or internal appeal against an administrative decision, where applicable.e.A Statement of reasons pursuant to Section 6;f.Notice to the right to legal representation, where applicableg.Information, materials and evidence and evidence to be relied upon in making the decision or taking the administrative action 58.The administer shall accord the person against whom administrative action is taken an opportunity to: -a.Attend proceedings, in person or in the company for an expert of his choice.b.Be heardc.Cross-examine persons who give adverse evidence against him.d.Request for an adjournment of the proceedings where necessary to ensure a fair hearing. 59.Nothing in this Section, shall have the effect of limiting the right of any person to appear or be represented by a legal representative in judicial or quasi-judicial proceedings. 60.Where the administrator is empowered by any written law to follow a procedure which conforms to the principles set out in Article 47 of the Constitution, the administrator may act in accordance with that different procedure. 61.Reliance is placed in the case of James Opiyo Wandayi v Kenya National Assembly &2 others [2016] eKLR this Court, Odunga J, opined as follows: -“In my view, Article 47 of the Constitution is now emphatic on the fairness of administrative action. The purpose of judicial review is to check that public bodies do not exceed their jurisdiction and carry out their duties in a manner that is detrimental to the public at large. It is meant to uplift the quality of public decision making, and thereby ensure for the citizen civilized governance, by holding the public authority to the limit defined by the law. Judicial review is therefore an important control, ventilating a host of varied types of problems, the focus of cases may range from matters of grave public concern to those of acute personal interest; from general policy to individualized discretion; from social controversy to commercial self- policy to interest; and anything in between, As a result, judicial review has significantly improved the quality of decision making. It has done this by upholding the values of fairness, reasonableness and objectivity in the conduct of management of public affairs. It has also restrained or curbed arbitrariness, checked abuse of power and has generally enhanced the rule of law in government business and other public entities. Seen from the above standpoint it is a sufficient tool in causing the body in question to remain accountable.” 62.He also relies on the Court of Appeal in Civil Appeal 52 of 2014 Judicial Service Commission vs. Mbalu Mutava & Another (2015) eKLR held as follows: -“Article 47(1) marks an important and transformative development of administrative justice for, it not only lays a constitutional foundation for control of the powers of state organs and other administrative bodies, but also entrenches the right to fair administrative action in the Bill of Rights. The right to fair administrative action is a reflection of some of the national values in article 10 such as the rule of law, human dignity, social justice, good governance, transparency and accountability. The administrative actions of public officers, state organs and other administrative bodies are now subjected by article 47(1) to the principle of constitutionality rather than to the doctrine of ultra vires from which administrative law under the common law was developed.” 63.He submits that the Respondents did not disclose the Complainant and the Complaint. 64.The Respondents declined to disclose the particulars of offence including the purported forged documents or the intended Exhibits. 65.We further submit that investigation cannot be complete without the statement of the Ex-parte Applicant. 66.The Respondents cannot evaluate the complaint unless they hear the story of the Ex-parte Applicant. 67.Investigations cannot be complete unless both parties (the Complainant and the accused) are heard so as the Respondents to make a determination. 68.The Respondents are and were irrational and unreasonableness in taking their decision to charge the Ex-parte Applicant. 69.The Respondents did not address the facts and the law before them. Had it they addressed the facts and the law; they could have arrived at a different decision. 70.The Respondents failed to act fairly in taking the decision to charge the Ex-parte Applicant. The unfairness was that of non-observance of the rules of natural justice. The Respondents acted with procedural fairness and leaned towards the purported complainant. Procedural rules of investigation as laid down by the stature were not followed. 71.In the case of Ugandan case of Pastoli v Kabale District Local Government Council & Others, (2008) 2 EA 300 at pages 303 to 304 thus: - 72.“In order to succeed in an application for Judicial Review, the applicant has to show that the decision or act complained of is tainted with illegality, irrationality and procedural impropriety: See Council of Civil Service Union v Minister for the Civil Service [1985] AC 2; and also Francis Bahikirwe Muntu and others v Kyambogo University, High Court, Kampala, miscellaneous application number 643 of 2005 (UR). 73.Illegality is when the decision-making authority commits an error of law in the process of taking the decision or making the act, the subject of the complaint. Acting without Jurisdiction or ultra vires, or contrary to the provisions of a law or its principles are instances of illegality. 74.Irrationality is when there is such gross unreasonableness in the decision taken or act done, that no reasonable authority, addressing itself to the facts and the law before it, would have made such a decision. Such a decision is usually in defiance of logic and acceptable moral standards: Re An Application by Bukoba Gymkhana Club [1963] EA 478 at page 479 paragraph 'E'. 75.Procedural impropriety is when there is failure to act fairly on the part of the decision- making authority in the process of taking a decision. The unfairness may be in non- observance of the Rules of Natural Justice or to act with procedural fairness towards one to be affected by the decision. It may also involve failure to adhere and observe procedural rules expressly laid down in a statute or legislative Instrument by which such authority exercises jurisdiction to decide. (AlMehdawi v Secretary of State for the Home Department [1990] AC 876).' 76.In the case of Patrick NgunjiriMuiruri v DPP [2017] eKLR, regarding the standard deployed by the Court to scrutinize the DPP’s use of his charging authority: - 77.“The law and practice, then, are quite clear: while the discretion of the DPP is unfettered, it is not unaccountable. While the authority to prosecute is entirely in the hands of the DPP, it is not absolute. On the other hand, while the power of the Court to review the decisions of the DPP are untrammeled, they are not to be exercised whimsically. While the Court can review the DPP’s decisions for rationality and procedural infirmities, it cannot review them on merit.” 78.He submits that the Respondents do not have a prosecutable case in the circumstances. 79.We support that the Respondents do not have prosecutable case through Ex-Parte Applicant’s Exhibit No. “OKO8” on Page 60 of the Notice of Motion. 80.The Court declared him as the:- registered and absolute owner and proprietor of all that land No. L.R. No. Ruiru Kiu block 6/537. 81.The Meaning of absolute owner/absolute proprietor. The implication of absolute owner is as follows:- Unchallenged Title: The registered owner now holds a legally superior and indefeasible title to the land, which is protected by law. Exclusive Rights: The declared owner has the sole right to possess, occupy, and use the land without interference from others. Legal Finality: The court's decision brings finality to the ownership dispute, settling the matter definitively unless specific legal grounds for cancellation or modification are established. Protection Against Claims: The declaration serves as a strong legal defense against any future claims or challenges to the ownership of the land by other parties. Basis for Further Action: An absolute title provides the foundation for the owner to register the land in their name and may be used to remove any restrictions or other legal encumbrances placed on the property, according to Kenya Law reports. 82.In R v Inspector General of Police & 3 Others Ex Parte Lillian Wangari & 5 Others [2017] eKLR, the Court further expounded on principle in the following words: - 83.It is for this reason that while the DPP has complete discretion and full autonomy to determine whether and against whom to bring criminal charges, the Courts have held that he must at least demonstrate that he has a prosecutable case and that his aim in bringing those charges are in the public interest. Hence, in R v Attorney General Exp Kipngeno Arap Ngeny (High Court Civil App No 406 of 2001), the Court stated thus: 84.A criminal prosecution which is commenced in the absence of proper factual foundation or basis is always suspect for ulterior motive or improper purpose. Before instituting criminal proceedings, there must be in existence material evidence on which the prosecution can say with certainty that they have a prosecutable case. A prudent and cautious prosecutor must be able to demonstrate that he has a reasonable and probable cause for mounting criminal prosecution otherwise the prosecution will be malicious and actionable' 85.Article 157(10) of the Constitution guarantees the independence of the DPP but mandates that the power to prosecute must be exercised in the interest of justice and to prevent abuse of the legal process (Article 157(11)). 86.He filed a complaint with the ODPP on 5th September 2025.To date, the ODPP have not acted on the complaint an/or addressed or prevent the abuse of the legal process as enshrined under Article 157 sub rule (10) and (11). 87.The intended prosecution of the Ex-parte Applicant is based on fabricated or unclear evidence. This is an abuse of legal process and this is the reason the Respondents did not attach the purported complainant statement, Exhibits, ownership documents of the disputed parcel of land or any other document at all including the purported forged documents. 88.In the case of Bernard Mwikya Mulinge v Director of Public Prosecutions & Others [2019] KLR, the Court held that where there is a prima facie case of prosecutorial abuse, the burden shifts to the DPP to justify the decision to prosecute. In this case, the Respondents have failed to convincingly justify the charges against the Petitioners. 89.The Respondents and the Interested Party are prosecuting the Exparte Applicant on the basis of the success in Civil Suit No. MCELC No. E167 of 2023 -Ruiru. 90.The Respondents are used to avenge on behalf of the purported Complainant. The Prosecution has been used as a tool of harassment. 91.The Respondents are not sure of the charges they intend to prefer against the Ex-parte Applicant. At one point, they state forgery in the Cash bail receipt whereas on the other hand, under Paragraph 23 of the Replying Affidavit they state giving false information to a public servant and obtaining false information by false pretence. It is not even disclosed who is the public servant. 92.The Court of Appeal in Commissioner of Police & Director of Criminal Investigation Department & Hon. Attorney-General vKenya Commercial Bank Limited & Others [2013] KECA 182 held that:-“Courts must intervene where prosecution is used as a tool for harassment or political persecution.” The Ex-parte Applicant has provided evidence suggesting that the charges against him were fabricated, as there are contradictions in the nature of the alleged offence committed. 93.In Cyrus Shakhalanga Khwa Jirongo v Soy Developers Ltd & Others (Petition 38 of 2019) [2021] KESC 32 (KLR), the Supreme Court emphasized that:-“Prosecutorial discretion should not be exercised to achieve ulterior motives or to suppress political dissent.” 94.In Diamond Hasham Lalji (supra), the Court of Appeal held that:-“While prosecutorial discretion is broad, it is subject to judicial review if exercised in bad faith.” 95.Section 24 of the National Police Service Act No 11 A of 2011 sets out functions of the Kenya Police Service as being the-a.Provision of assistance to the public when in need;b.Maintenance of law and order;c.Preservation of peace;d.Protection of life and property;e.Investigation of crimes;f.Collection of criminal intelligence; (g) Prevention and detection of crime;g.Apprehension of offenders;h.Enforcement of all laws and regulations with which it is charged; andi.Performance of any other duties that may be prescribed by the Inspector-General under this Act or any other written law from time to time. 96.The word “investigate” is defined in the Black’s Law Dictionary 9th Edition as: “To inquire into a matter systematically; to make an official inquiry.” 97.The Court gave directions for the Parties to respond to the Exparte Applicant’s Notice of Motion. 98.The Interested Party did not respond. In other words, the Interested Party did not oppose the Ex-Parte Applicant’s application. No Replying Affidavit filed by the Interested Party. 99.In the case of John Ogendo Anyona v Chief of Kenya Defence Forces & 2 others [2014] eKLR, the Court held that: -“That the Respondents did not file any response to the Notice of Motion and the grounds set out therein. Similarly, there is no substantive response by the Respondents to the statutory statement and the reliefs sought therein. The matters set out in the verifying affidavit have not been controverted in a replying affidavit.” 100.In law the averments in the supporting affidavit in particular, having remained unchallenged to date, stand proven on a balance of probability and the Court proceeds to apply the law applicable in matters of this nature based on the proven facts.” 101.In the case of Gideon Sitelu Konchellah v Julius Lekakeny Ole Sunkuli & 2 others [2018] eKLR, the Supreme Court held as follows: -“A Replying Affidavit is the principal document wherein a respondent's reply is set and the basis of any submissions and/or List of Authorities that may be subsequently filed. Absence this foundational pleading the Replying Affidavit, it follows that even the Written Submissions purportedly filed by the 1st Respondent on August 17, 2018 are of no effect. The upshot is that as the 2nd and 3rd Respondents had categorically stated that they do not oppose the application, the Court Will be excused for therefore deeming the application as being unopposed entirely', 102.In the case of Car Importer Mombasa Association of Kenya v County Government of [2021] eKLR, the Court held as follows:-“Similarly, in Phillip Tirop Kitur vs Attorney General [2018] ekLR, the Court accepted the affidavit evidence, and ruled that in the absence of a replying affidavit or oral evidence from the Attorney General, the Petitioner's evidence stood unchallenged. In addition, the High Court rejected the Attorney General's contention that the delay in filing the Petition had cause Replying affidavit or oral evidence, the Court had no facts upon which caused it prejudice, ruling that in the absence of a it could make such a finding. Therefore, by the mere fact of the affidavits not having been controverted, there is an assumption that what is averred in the affidavit as factual evidence is admitted.” 103.On the issue whether the Court has Powers to hear this Judicial Review Application. He places reliance in the case of R v Kenya Revenue Authority Exparte Yaya Towers Ltd [2008] eKLR, the Court enlisted grounds for Judicial Review as abuse of discretion irrationally, excess of jurisdiction, improper motives, failure to exercise discretion, abuse of the rules of natural justice, fettering of discretion or error of the law. 104.For the Court to issue a writ remedy it must be satisfied that the act or omission complained of was arrived at illegally, unreasonably, improperly, irrationally, biased, in bad faith, or otherwise ultra vires hence a breach of the principles of natural justice. 105.In the case of Captain Geoffrey Kuguya Murungi vs AG Misc Civil Application No 293 of 1993, the Court stated that:- 106.“Certiorari deals with the decision already made such an order (certiorari) can only be issued where the court considers that the decision under attack was reached without or in excess of jurisdiction or in breach of the rules of natural justice or contrary to law. 107.In the case of Kenya Examination Council v R Exparte Geoffrey Gathenji Njoroge and 9 Others [1997] eKLR the Court held that: -“Where a decision has been made, whether in excess or lack of Jurisdiction or whether in violation of the rules of natural justice, an order of prohibition will not be efficacious against the decision so made. Prohibition cannot quash a decision that has already been made; it can only prevent the making of a contemplated decision”. The Respondents’ Case 108.In opposing the application, The ODPP on his part relies on the affidavit of an officer who depones that he sought the advice of the State Counsel of the office of the Attorney General who is in conduct of this matter and whose advise he verily believes to be true. The Respondent’s Submissions 109.The Respondents submit that this is a Land Fraud matter in regards to Land Parcel Number Githurai/Ting’ang’a Co. Limited initially registered as LR No. 8867 Plot No. E86 and now registered as Ruiru/Kiu block 6/537 Section 35 of the National Police Service Act provides that; “The Directorate shall—a.Collect and provide criminal intelligence;b.Undertake investigations on serious crimes including homicide, narcotic crimes, human trafficking, money laundering, terrorism, economic crimes, piracy, organized crime, and cybercrime among others;c.Detect and prevent crime;d.Apprehend offenders;e.Maintain criminal records;f.Conduct forensic analysis;g.Execute the directions given to the Inspector-General by the Director of Public Prosecutions pursuant to Article 157 (4) of the Constitution;” 110.The ex parte Applicant has failed to demonstrate that the Respondents acted unlawfully, irrationally, or in breach of any constitutional or statutory provisions in undertaking the impugned criminal investigations and/or contemplated prosecution. 111.Reliance is placed on the case of Republic vs Commissioner of Police and Another ex parte Michael Monari & Another (2012) eKLR where it was held that:-“The police have a duty to investigate on any complaint once a complaint is made. Indeed, the police would be failing in their constitutional mandate to detect and prevent crime. The police only need to establish reasonable suspicion before preferring charges. The rest is left to the trial court. As long as the prosecution and those charged with the responsibility of making the decisions to charge act in a reasonable manner, the High Court would be reluctant to intervene” 112.It further places reliance in the case of Republic v Attorney General & 4 others ex- parte Diamond Hashim Lalji and Ahmed Hasham Lalji [2014] eKLR when he stated that:“Judicial review applications do not deal with the merits of the case but only with the process. In other words, judicial review only determines whether the decision makers had the jurisdiction, whether the persons affected by the decision were heard before it was made and whether in making the decision the decision maker took into account relevant matters or did take into account irrelevant matters. It follows that where an applicant brings judicial review proceedings with a view to determining contested matters of facts and in effect urges the Court to determine the merits of two or more different versions presented by the parties the Court would not have jurisdiction in a judicial review proceeding to determine such a matter and will leave the parties to resort to the normal forums where such matters ought to be resolved.The Court in judicial review proceedings is mainly concerned with the question of fairness to the applicant in the institution and continuation of the criminal proceedings and once the Court is satisfied that the same are bona fides and that the same are being conducted in a fair manner, the High Court ought not to usurp the jurisdiction of the trial Court and trespass onto the arena of trial by determining the sufficiency or otherwise of the evidence to be presented against the applicant. Where, however, it is clear that there is no evidence at all or that the prosecution’s evidence even if were to be correct would not disclose any offence known to law, to allow the criminal proceedings to continue would amount to the Court abetting abuse of the Court process by the prosecution.” 113.They also rely on the case of Ex-parte Ewart Frey Salins (2018) eKLR and Republic v inspector General of police & 2 others ex-parte Jimi Richard Wanjigi (2019) eKLR where it was held that;“ 24.Further, that if it turns out that the proceedings were unwarranted, there exists an avenue for compensation for malicious prosecution and that because of this the power of quashing or prohibiting is used sparingly. 114.Therefore, that the Court in judicial review cannot convert itself as a trial court and determine the merit of the intended or continuing criminal trial or prosecution. It was the Interested Party’s submission in this regard that it is the trial court with the mandate to determine the sufficiency of a charge or otherwise, and is the correct court to do so.” 115.The interested party relies on various grounds of opposition. 116.It is his case that the Application is an abuse of court process, being an attempt to preempt or frustrate a lawful administrative or investigative process. 117.He raises another ground of opposition that the Application is speculative and based on anticipatory claims rather than actual decisions or actions capable of being reviewed. 118.It is also his case that the interested party has not made any decision rendering the prayers being sought in the Judicial Review Application non-justiciable against the Interested Party herein. 119.He further raises a ground that the Applicant has not demonstrated any illegality, irrationality or procedural impropriety by the interested Party to warrant the grant of the orders being sought. 120.His last ground is that it is apparent from the pleadings that investigations are still ongoing, and it would be premature to make any definitive decisions regarding prosecution. 121.Through the Replying Affidavit it is the interested party’s case that all the prosecution's witnesses' statement and relevant documentary evidence will be provided to the Ex- parte Applicants immediately the office of the dpp approves and give a decision to charge and we have since prepared a police case file to enable us dispense with the above case before a Magistrate by way of a hearing. 122.It is further the interested parties’ case that a case of Obtaining Land Registration by false pretenses contrary to Section 320 of the Penal Code was reported at Kasarani Police Station vide OB.NO.76/21/06/2024 by DANIEL NDUHIU WAGITA of ID.3207223. 123.The complainant alleged that his parcel of land known as GITHURAI TING'ANG'A CO. LTD L.R NO. 8867 PLOT NO. E86 had been grabbed by an unknown person. 124.The complainants was that he had purchased the said land parcel from one JANE AKUMU (D-2) of ID. 10027436 who had acquired the same from the GITHURAI TING'ANG'A COMPANY LIMITED in 2002. 125.Preliminary investigations revealed that the Government of the Republic of Kenya had in 2022 processed title deeds for the above parcel and its surroundings where the parcel begot new identity as Ruiru Kiu block 6/537. The Interested Parties Submissions: a. Whether any decision exists that is attributable to the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions and capable of Judicial Review. 126.The ODPP has not made the decision hence nothing has been furnished before this court to demonstrate the action of the ODPP. 127.Reliance is placed in the case of Kenya National Examination Council v Republic (Ex Parte) Njoroge & 9 Others. Civil Appeal 266 of 1996 [1997] KECA 58 (KLR), it is apparent that Certiorari is issued to quash a decision already made. 128.It submits that at the time of filing the instant Application, no decision had been made by the DPP. 129.It submits that it called for the police file but the same was never availed.The ODPP could not therefore:-Form an opinion under Article 157(6), direct further investigations under Article 157(40, approve, decline or review any charges, - issue any directive to the police. 130.So, at the time of filing the Application, there was no decision- express, implicit, or constructive - capable of Judicial review. Whether the Applicant has established grounds for orders of Certiorari or prohibition. 131.Filed on: - No Paid- - BY: The Republic - Reference: E4NJB3W4 - KSH. 0.00An order of prohibition cannot issue against the ODPP because the ODPP has not commenced any process against the Applicant. Prohibition issues to bar future step only where a public body is shown to be in the process of acting unlawfully. Since the ODPP has not received the file at the time of filing the Application, a decision to charge had not been made, and as such prohibition should not be issued. 132.A public body can only be faulted for failure to act where there existed a statutory duty to act and it possessed the information or material necessary to act. Under Article 157(4) of the Constitution, the ODPP exercises oversight over investigations only where a file is submitted. The ODPP has no power to size files forcibly or intervene in the middle of ongoing investigations without a formal request or completed inquiry. 133.From the Applicant’s pleadings, the ODPP acted within its mandate by, acknowledging the Applicant’s complaint, requesting the investigative file, awaiting submission of the file to determine the proper course of action. Whether the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions bears any legal duty that it violated in this matter. 134.The ODPP cannot be held responsible for investigative irregularities if at all. The Applicant’s grievances -non-disclosure of complainant, alleged bias, alleged harrassment, alleged unlawful detention- are complaints not linked to the ODPP. 135.Article 245(4) of the Constitution expressly states:“No person may give a direction to the Inspector-General with respect to the investigation of any particular offence.” 136.Therefore, the ODPP cannot interfere with the investigative process until the police formally place the file before it. The Applicant cannot therefore impute investigation-related wrongdoing to the ODPP. 137.The ODPP’s constitutional Independence must be respected. Article 157(10) provides: ‘The Director of Public Prosecutions shall not require the consent of any person to institute proceedings and shall not be under the direction or control of any person.” It would violate the ODPP’s independence for this Court to issue orders suggesting that the ODPP failed in its mandate without evidence of a decision or omission. 138.The holding in Diamond Hashsm LaljiAhmed vs Attorney General & 4 others (Civil Appeal 274 of 2014) 2018 KECA 856 (KLR), the court at paragraph 66, stated thus;Filed on: - No Paid- - BY: The Republic - Reference: E4NJB3W4 - KSH. 0.00‘’We also appreciate that the function of the DPP is to direct investigations and prosecute and not to adjudicate on the rights of the parties. To that extent, the function of the DPP is administrative and not judicial or quasi-judicial. Thus, as the learned judge correctly stated, the rules of natural justice do not strictly apply to his decision.’’ 139.The issues for determination is whether the application has merit and who should bear the costs. 140.Article 165(6) of the Constitution provides that this Court has supervisory jurisdiction over any person, body or authority that exercises a quasi-judicial function or a function that is likely to affect a person’s rights. 141.The court has to determine whether the suit is speculative. 142.In addressing the question whether the suit is premature, the court has been guided by the principles as enunciated in Petition No. 628 of 2014 consolidated with Petition No. 630 of 2014 and Petition No. 12 of 2015 where;-“At Para 107. The court held that the jurisdiction of this court stems from Article 165 (3) of the Constitution, which provides that: (3) Subject to clause (5), the High Court shall have- (b) jurisdiction to determine the question whether a right or fundamental freedom in the Bill of Rights has been denied, violated, infringed or threatened; (c) … (d) jurisdiction to hear any question respecting the interpretation of this Constitution including the determination of- (i) the question whether any law is inconsistent with or in contravention of this constitution. (Emphasis added)” 108.Article 22 (1) of the Constitution grants every person 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, while Article 258 of the Constitution provides that: Every person has the right to institute court proceedings, claiming that this Constitution has been contravened, or is threatened with contravention. 109.We agree with the AG and the DPP that the Court should not engage in an academic or hypothetical exercise. As the High Court stated in John Harun Mwau & 3 Others v Attorney General and 2 Others, Petition No. 65 of 2011: Petition No. 628 of 2014 consolidated with Petition No. 630 of 20154 and Petition No. 12 of 2015 Page 29 “We also agree with the submissions of Prof. Ghai that this Court should not deal with hypothetical and academic issues. In our view, it is correct to state that the jurisdiction to interpret the constitution conferred under Article 165(3) (d) does not exist in a vacuum and it is not exercised independently in the absence of a real dispute. It is exercised in the context of a dispute or controversy.” 110.In similar vein, in the case of Samuel Muigai Ng'ang'a vs The Minister for Justice, National Cohesion and Constitutional Affairs and Another, Petition No 354 of 2012, Lenaola J expressed himself on the issue of justiciability as follows: “The Petitioner has crafted questions to which he seeks an answer but where is the dispute that I am supposed to resolve? Elsewhere above, I have merely set out the Law as applicable to the issues raised but what is justiciable about those issues? Black’s Law Dictionary defines ‘justiciable’ as “proper to be examined in courts of justice”. It further goes on to define a ‘justiciable controversy’ as “a controversy in which a claim or right is asserted against one who has an interest in contesting it.” The other definition given of a justiciable controversy is “a question as may properly come before a tribunal for decision.” 111.The Court proceeded to cite the decision in Patrick Ouma Onyango & 12 Others v The Attorney General & 2 Others, Misc. Appl No. 677 of 2005 in which the court endorsed the doctrine of justiciability, as stated by Lawrence H. Tribe in his treatise American Constitutional Law, 2nd Edition, p. 92 that; 'In order for a claim to be justiciable as an article III matter, it must “present a real and substantial controversy which unequivocally calls for adjudication of the rights asserted.” In part, the extent to which there is a 'real and substantial controversy is determined under the doctrine of standing' by an examination of the sufficiency of the stake of the person making the claim, to ensure the litigant has suffered an actual injury which is fairly traceable to challenged action and likely to be redressed by the judicial relief requested. The Petition No. 628 of 2014 consolidated with Petition No. 630 of 20154 and Petition No. 12 of 2015 Page 30 substantiality of the controversy is also in part a feature of the controversy itself-an aspect of ‘the appropriateness of the issues for judicial decision...and the actual hardship of denying litigants the relief sought. Examination of the contours of the controversy is regarded as necessary to ensure that courts do not overstep their constitutional authority by issuing advisory opinions. The ban on advisory opinion is further articulated and reinforced by judicial consideration of two supplementary doctrines: that of 'ripeness' which requires that the factual claims underlying the litigation be concretely presented and not based on speculative future contingencies and of 'mootness' which reflects the complementary concern of ensuring that the passage of time or succession of events has not destroyed the previously live nature of the controversy. Finally, related to the nature of the controversy is the 'political question' doctrine, barring decision of certain disputes best suited to resolution by other governmental actors'. 112.However, we are satisfied, after due consideration of the provisions of Article 22, 165(3) (d) and 258 of the Constitution, that the words of the Constitution, taken in their ordinary meaning, are clear and render the present controversy ripe and justiciable: a party does not have to wait until a right or fundamental freedom has been violated, or for a violation of the Constitution to occur, before approaching the Court. He has a right to do so if there is a threat of violation or contravention of the Constitution. 113. We take this view because it cannot have been in vain that the drafters of the Constitution added “threat” to a right or fundamental freedom and “threatened ……. contravention” as one of the conditions entitling a person to approach the High Court for relief under Article 165(3) (b) and (d) (i). A “threat” has been defined in Black’s Dictionary, 9th Edition as “an indication of an approaching menace e.g. threat of bankruptcy; a Person or a thing that might cause harm” (emphasis added). The same dictionary defines “threat” as “a communicated intent to inflict harm or loss to another…” 114.The use of the words “indication”, “approaching”, “might” and “communicated intent” all go to show, in the context of Articles 22, 165(3) (d) and 258, Petition No. 628 of 2014 consolidated with Petition No. 630 of 20154 and Petition No. 12 of 2015 Page 31 that for relief to be granted, there must not be actual violation of either a fundamental right or of the Constitution but that indications of such violations are apparent. 115.What is the test to apply when a court is confronted with alleged threats of violations aforesaid? In our view, each case must be looked at in its unique circumstances, and a court ought to differentiate between academic, theoretical claims and paranoid fears with real threat of constitutional violations. In that regard, Lenaola J. in Commission for the Implementation of the Constitution vs The National Assembly & 2 Others [2013] eKLR differentiated between hypothetical issues framed for determination in that case and the power of the High Court to intervene before an Act of Parliament has actually been enacted and in circumstances such as are before us where the impugned Act has been enacted and has come into force. He stated in that regard that: “…… where the basic structure or design and architecture of our Constitution are under threat, this Court can genuinely intervene and protect the Constitution.” We agree with the Learned Judge and would only add that clear and unambiguous threats such as to the design and architecture of the Constitution are what a party seeking relief must prove before the High Court can intervene. 143.In the instant application the court makes a finding that Article 23 of the Constitution allows any applicant who believes that his rights are threatened to seek redress including judicial review orders. 144.This court is satisfied that even where investigations are ongoing, nothing stops an aggrieved applicant from moving this court to bring to a halt a process that is riddled with glaring illegalities, irregularities and procedural improprieties like in the instant application. 145.On another front it is illegal for The ODPP to purport to rely on the advice of the Attorney General. This watered down the ODPp’s case. The court already made that finding on this issue at the preliminary stage. 146.Moving to another issue, the court notes that the applicant wrote a letter requesting for action and information that would have aided and enriched the investigations. 147.The refusal to give him a chance to give his side of the story or to give his documents to advance or aid the investigator to secure a complete and an accurate investigation report amounted a procedural impropriety. 148.Charging and prosecuting him with the offence that is predicated on an inconclusive investigation process presents a case of an ailing, and ill motivated investigation and prosecution exercise which offends the Applicant's right to equal benefit before the Law. 149.As at the time of filing the application the applicant had not received any response to his letter nor accepted the applicant’s documents. 150.A criminal trial that flows from a fountain offends the accused person’s rights to fair administrative action or his right to fair hearing can never culminate in a legitimate conviction. It offends the right to fair hearing and it must be stopped at the earliest before it causes harm. The decision to charge the applicant in the circumstances where the investigation officer and the Office of the director of public prosecution has refused to hear the Applicant's side of the case and even refused to accept the documents that he has repeatedly attempted to give the investigator to no avail cannot be said to be one that is legally sound. It will be a decision that is premeditated or inspired by an ulterior motive. 151.The Supreme Court in the case of Githiga & 5 others v Kiru Tea Factory Company Ltd (Petition 13 of 2019) [2023] KESC 41 (KLR) (16 June 2023) (Judgment) held that under Article 50(2) of the Constitution procedural fairness in the administration of justice involved the fair hearing rule that required a decision maker to inter alia afford a person an opportunity to be heard before making any decision affecting his/her interests. 152.The Supreme Court of India in Sangram Singh v Electio Tribunal Koteh 1955 AIR 425 emphasized that the principle of natural justice requires ‘‘that men should not be condemned unheard, that decisions should not be reached behind their backs, that proceedings that affect their lives and property should not continue in their absence and that they should not be precluded from participating in them.’’ 153.The consequence of breach of the rules of natural justice Nancy Musili v Joyce Mbete Katisi [2018] eKLR is the denial of the right to be heard that renders any decision made null and void ab initio. 154.Justice Odunga (as he then was) explained in the case of Republic v Commission on Administrative Justice & 2 others Ex parte Michael Kamau Mubea [2017] eKLR the importance of an affected party being accorded an opportunity to be heard as follows:‘‘112.In my view, reference to hearing the other side must have been with respect to oral representation since I do not see how a decision affecting a person can be made without affording that person an opportunity to present his case either orally or by in writing in light of the provisions of Article 47 and 50 of the Constitution. However, the law is clear that where a tribunal decides to hearone party then it must hear all the parties.’’ 155.The failure to respond to the Applicant's letter and the refusal to accept his documents as highlighted earlier in this judgment does not accord with The Fair Administrative Action as guaranteed under Article 47 of The Constitution. 156.The applicant had a legitimate expectation that he would be furnished with a response even to say that the investigator didn’t see any reason to respond to his letter. He also had a legitimate expectation and rightly so that the documents he was seeking to give to the investigator would have to added value to the impeding investigations. 157.The manner in which the investigations were conducted is very questionable in the circumstances. 158.Whereas the police have the statutory mandate to investigate crime, the same must be carried out in a manner that accords with the Law. 159.The applicant demonstrated that his late father bequeathed him the land, he respondents were aware that a survey was done and that the applicant was issued with a certificate of title after a rigorous process. 160.The court has further noted that the applicant is a decree holder through a judicious process that confirmed that he owns the property that forms the substratum of the investigations. 161.From the foregoing, the court is satisfied that the respondents are being used to achieve an ulterior purpose as a result of which the court has all the reasons to intervene. 162.The Court has already determined that the office of The Attorney General has no jurisdiction over the office of The Director of Public Prosecution which draws its mandate from Article 157 of The Constitution and I see no reason to revisit that. 163.There are Constitutional principles which every public officer including the 1st Respondent should take into account in exercising his power and in performing his functions including the supremacy of the Constitution, the national values which includes rule of law, human dignity, transparency and accountability; and fundamental rights and freedoms, an integral part of which includes fair administrative action and right to a fair trial. 164.Article 157(4) provides that: -(4)The Director of Public Prosecutions shall have power to direct the inspector-general of the national police service to investigate any information or allegation of criminal conduct and the inspector general shall comply with any such direction. 165.However, article 157(11) stipulates that:(11)In exercising the powers conferred by this article, the director of public prosecutions shall have regard to the public interest, the interests of the administration of justice and the need to prevent and avoid abuse of the legal process. 166.Sylvester Gaitano Odhiambo v Republic [2022] KEHC 1577 (KLR) the court stated thus: -“..a criminal prosecution which is commenced in the absence of proper factual foundation or basis is always suspect for ulterior motive or improper purpose… The court added that: “… A prudent and cautious prosecutor must be able to demonstrate that he has a reasonable and probable cause for mounting a criminal prosecution otherwise the prosecution will be malicious and actionable.” 167.In the instant suit, this court is satisfied that the respondents acted without a proper factual foundation, legal process or basis given that the applicant had a clear chronology of how he acquired the property and a desire to be heard before the decision to charge was made which was ignored. 168.The above conduct on the part of the Respondents was aimed at achieving an ulterior motive or improper purpose to the applicant’s prejudice which this court cannot countenance. This amounts to a procedural irregularity and illegality. 169.In arriving at the conclusion that the Applicant has proven his case, I was guided by the Supreme Court in Samson Gwer & 5 others v Kenya Medical Research Institute & 3 others (2020) KLR where it was held as follows:“(49)Section 108 of the Evidence Act provides that, “the burden of proof in a suit or procedure lies on that person who would fail if no evidence at all were given on either side;” and Section 109 of the Act declares that, “the burden of proof as to any particular fact lies on the person who wishes the court to believe in its existence, unless it is provided by any law that the proof of that fact shall lie on any particular person.” 170.The applicant has proven his case within the principles as enunciated in the case of Council of Civil Service Union v Minister for the Civil Service [1985] AC 2 -(supra). Costs: 171.On the issue of costs, the court is guided by the case of Republic vs Rosemary Wairimu Munene, Ex-Parte Applicant vs IhururuDairy Farmers Cooperative Society LtdJudicial Review Application no 6 of 2014where the court held as follows: -“The issue of costs is the discretion of the court as provided under the above section. The basic rule on attribution of costs is that costs follow the event.......It is well recognized that the principle costs follow the event is not to be used to penalize the losing party; rather it is for compensating the successful party for the trouble taken in prosecuting or defending the case.” 172.The Respondents shall shoulder the costs, Determination; 173.The applicant has made out a case for the grant of the orders sought.Order;a.an order of certiorari to remove into the High Court and quash the 1st, 2nd and 3rd Respondent’s decision to charge the Ex-Parte Applicant on the alleged offence of forgery in regard to Land Parcel No. Ruiru Kiu block 6/537 situated at Ruiru Sub- County, Kiambu County is hereby issued.b.an order of prohibition is hereby issued directed at the 1st, 2nd and 3rd Respondents, their Investigators, Officers, Police Officers, CID Officers and/or any other Person(s) and/or authorities acting on their behalf and/or on the instructions of the 1st, 2nd and 3rd Respondents be stopped from arresting, arraigning, Charging and/or prosecuting the Exparte Applicant, in any manner whatever and whatsoever on the alleged offence of forgery and/or any Other offence in regard to Land Parcel NO. Ruiru Kiu block 6/537 situated at Ruiru Sub-county, Kiambu County.c.Costs to the applicant. DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED AT VIRTUAL ELDORET THIS 12TH DAY OF JUNE 2026.……………………………..J. CHIGITI (SC)JUDGE