Onyari & 5 others v Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions & another (Constitutional Petition E009 of 2026) [2026] KEHC 13220 (KLR) (21 May 2026) (Ruling)
Because substantially similar relief had already been sought and obtained in parallel proceedings before another court of concurrent jurisdiction, and that fact had not been disclosed when the matter previously came up for ruling, the court found that continuing to entertain the petitions risked conflicting...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2026] KEHC 13220 (KLR)
- Parties
- 1st Applicant: Duke Simeon Onyari; 2nd Applicant: David Ombego; 3rd Applicant: Leonard Nyamasese; 4th Applicant: Joyce Onyiego; 5th Applicant: Erick Ayuka; 6th Applicant: Simeon Ogecha; 1st Respondent: Office Of The Director Of Public Prosecutions; 2nd Respondent: Ethics and Anti-Corruption Commission
- Court
- High Court
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Constitutional Petition E009 of 2026
- Procedural Posture
- Constitutional Petition / Ruling on Transfer of Case Suo Motu
- Outcome
- Petitions transferred; conservatory orders not extended.
- Judges
- ["TW Cherere"]
- Legal Topics
- Parallel Proceedings, Conservatory Orders, Anticipatory Bail, Transfer of Proceedings, Full and Frank Disclosure, Concurrent Jurisdiction, Abuse of Court Process
- Source Language
- en
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Duke Simeon Onyari
1st Applicant
David Ombego
2nd Applicant
Leonard Nyamasese
3rd Applicant
Joyce Onyiego
4th Applicant
Erick Ayuka
5th Applicant
Simeon Ogecha
6th Applicant
Office Of The Director Of Public Prosecutions
1st Respondent
Ethics and Anti-Corruption Commission
2nd Respondent
Procedural Posture
Constitutional Petition / Ruling on Transfer of Case Suo Motu
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the court should continue determining petitions where parallel proceedings over the same subject matter had been filed in another court of concurrent jurisdiction and conservatory orders obtained.
- 2 Whether the failure to disclose the parallel proceedings justified declining further substantive pronouncements and transferring the matters.
- 3 Whether the previously issued conservatory orders should be extended.
Ratio Decidendi
Because substantially similar relief had already been sought and obtained in parallel proceedings before another court of concurrent jurisdiction, and that fact had not been disclosed when the matter previously came up for ruling, the court found that continuing to entertain the petitions risked conflicting decisions and compromised orderly administration of justice; it therefore transferred the petitions to the ACEC Division at Milimani and declined to extend the conservatory orders.
Court Disposition
Petitions transferred; conservatory orders not extended.
Orders
- Nyamira HCCHRPET E008 of 2026 and Nyamira HCCHRPET E009 of 2026 are transferred to the Anti-Corruption and Economic Crimes (ACEC) Division of the High Court at Milimani Nairobi for further directions and disposal.
- The court declines to extend the conservatory orders previously issued in the petitions.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
Onyari & 5 others v Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions & another (Constitutional Petition E009 of 2026) [2026] KEHC 13220 (KLR) (21 May 2026) (Ruling) Neutral citation: [2026] KEHC 13220 (KLR) Republic of Kenya In the High Court at Nyamira Constitutional Petition E009 of 2026 TW Cherere, J May 21, 2026 Between Duke Simeon Onyari 1st Applicant David Ombego 2nd Applicant Leonard Nyamasese 3rd Applicant Joyce Onyiego 4th Applicant Erick Ayuka 5th Applicant Simeon Ogecha 6th Applicant and Office Of The Director Of Public Prosecutions 1st Respondent Ethics and Anti-Corruption Commission 2nd Respondent Ruling Ruling On Transfer Of Case Suo Motu 1.It is a cardinal principle of judicial administration that courts of concurrent jurisdiction ought to exercise restraint so as to avoid issuing contradictory orders or appearing to sit on appeal over each other’s decisions. Equally, parties and counsel appearing before court are under a duty to make full and frank disclosure of all material facts, particularly where there exist parallel proceedings touching on the same dispute and reliefs. 2.The Court notes that Nyamira HCCRMISCAPP E020 of 2026 was filed on 24th March 2026 seeking, inter alia, anticipatory bail, conservatory orders staying arrest and prosecution in relation to Keroka MCCGCR E001 of 2026, and orders restraining the Respondents from executing warrants of arrest issued against the Applicants pending hearing and determination of the application. 3.Upon hearing the parties, this Court delivered its ruling on 08th April 2026 declining to grant the anticipatory and conservatory reliefs sought. The Court further directed that the interim anticipatory bail orders granted on 24th March 2026 would lapse on 12th April 2026 and ordered the Applicants to attend before the trial court in Keroka MCCGCR E001 of 2026 on 13th April 2026. 4.It has since emerged that on 07th April 2026, a day before this Court’s ruling in Nyamira HCCRMISCAPP E020 of 2026 was delivered, the Petitioners herein filed Bomet HCCR Petition E002 of 2026 and Bomet HCCR Petition E003 of 2026 seeking the same orders as those sought in Nyamira HCCRMISCAPP E020 of 2026, and obtained conservatory orders on the same date in relation to the same criminal proceedings and involving the same parties and subject matter. The said matters have since been transferred to this Court and are now registered as Nyamira HCCHRPET E008 of 2026 and Nyamira HCCHRPET E009 of 2026 respectively. 5.Notably, when Nyamira HCCRMISCAPP E020 of 2026 came up for ruling on 08th April 2026, counsel for the Applicants did not disclose the existence of the parallel proceedings and the conservatory orders already issued therein, nor was any effort made to withdraw the matter despite substantially similar relief having already been obtained before another court of concurrent jurisdiction. 6.In those circumstances, the institution of parallel proceedings before courts of concurrent jurisdiction concerning the same criminal proceedings, parties and reliefs created the real possibility of conflicting decisions and undermined the orderly administration of justice. 7.This Court is therefore satisfied that the prudent course is to refrain from making any further substantive pronouncements on Nyamira HCCHRPET E008 of 2026 and Nyamira HCCHRPET E009 of 2026. 8.Accordingly, Nyamira HCCHRPET E008 of 2026 and Nyamira HCCHRPET E009 of 2026 are hereby transferred to the Anti-Corruption and Economic Crimes (ACEC) Division of the High Court at Milimani Nairobi for further directions and disposal. 9.For the foregoing reasons, this Court declines to extend the conservatory orders previously issued in these petitions. DELIVERED AT NYAMIRA THIS 21ST DAY OF MAY 2026WAMAE.T. W. CHEREREJUDGEAppearancesCourt Assistant - HildaFor Petitioners - N/A for & Co. AdvocatesFor 1st Respondent - Mr. Chirchir (SDDPP)For 2nd Respondent - Ms. Yator