[2022] KEHC 2076 (KLR)
The court found that although no breach of the petitioner's rights had been attributed to the fifth respondent, the Independent Policing Oversight Authority's statutory mandate to hold the police accountable and investigate police conduct made it a proper party to the petition. The court reasoned that, should the...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2022] KEHC 2076 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Rams George Opee; Respondent: The Inspector General of the Police; Respondent: The Director of Criminal Investigations; Respondent: The Officer in Charge Oyugis Police Station; Respondent: The Director of Public Prosecutions; Respondent: Independent Policing Oversight Authority; Respondent: The Hon. Attorney General
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Homa Bay
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Petition 11 of 2020
- Procedural Posture
- Constitutional Petition / Ruling on Application to Strike Out Party
- Outcome
- application dismissed
- Judges
- KW Kiarie
- Legal Topics
- Joinder of Parties, Constitutional Petitions, Public Accountability
- 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
Rams George Opee
Applicant
The Inspector General of the Police
Respondent
The Director of Criminal Investigations
Respondent
The Officer in Charge Oyugis Police Station
Respondent
The Director of Public Prosecutions
Respondent
Independent Policing Oversight Authority
Respondent
The Hon. Attorney General
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Constitutional Petition / Ruling on Application to Strike Out Party
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the Independent Policing Oversight Authority was properly joined as a party to the petition.
- 2 Whether the petition discloses any reasonable cause of action against the fifth respondent.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that although no breach of the petitioner's rights had been attributed to the fifth respondent, the Independent Policing Oversight Authority's statutory mandate to hold the police accountable and investigate police conduct made it a proper party to the petition. The court reasoned that, should the petition succeed, the fifth respondent may be called upon to investigate the actions of the police and ensure accountability. Therefore, the application to strike out the fifth respondent was dismissed as the joinder was proper in the circumstances.
Court Disposition
application dismissed
Orders
- The application by the fifth respondent to strike out its name from the petition is dismissed.
- Each party to bear its own costs.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
31 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT HOMA BAY
PETITION NO. 11 OF 2020
RAMS GEORGE OPEE............................................................................. PETITIONER
VERSUS
THE INSPECTOR GENERAL OF THE POLICE............................1ST RESPONDENT
THE DIRECTOR OF CRIMINAL INVESTIGATIONS...................2ND RESPONDENT
THE OFFICER IN CHARGE OYUGIS POLICE STATION...........3RD RESPONDENT
THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS .......................... 4TH RESPONDENT
INDEPENDENT POLICING OVERSIGHT AUTHORITY ........... 5TH RESPONDENT
THE HON. ATTORNEY GENERAL ................................................. 6TH RESPONDENT
RULING
1. The fifth respondent herein moved the court by way of Notice of Motion dated 10th December, 2020 and is seeking the following orders:
a) That this honourable court be pleased to strike out the name of the fifth respondent from the petition as the fifth respondent is improperly joined as a party to the petition.
b) That the petitioner do pay costs of the application and of the suit to the fifth respondent.
2. The application was premised on the following grounds:
a) That the fifth respondent has been wrongfully enjoined in the petition.
b) That the petitioner has not demonstrated the violation or threatened violation of his fundamental rights and the manner in which his rights have been violated by the fifth respondent.
c) That the petition does not disclose any reasonable cause of action against the fifth respondent as no orders are sought against the fifth respondent and as such, the petition is mischievous, misconceived and an abuse of the due process of the court.
d) That the name of the fifth respondent should be struck out with costs.
3. The application was opposed on grounds that the fifth respondent has a duty to investigate the complaints by the petitioner.
4. The fifth respondent is created under section 3 (1) of the Independent Policing Oversight Authority Act, 2011 which states:
1) There is hereby established an Authority to be known as the Independent Policing Oversight Authority.
5. One of the objectives of the fifth respondent is provided under section 5 (a) in the following terms:
The objectives of the Authority shall be to:
a) hold the Police accountable to the public in the performance of their functions;
Accountability to the public is very key objective for the creation of the fifth respondent. In as much no breach of the rights of the applicant have not been attributed to the authority, in the event that the petition is allowed, the 5th respondent may be asked to ensure that the actions of the police are investigated and the culprits made to account. I therefore find that the fifth respondent was properly enjoined,
6. The application by the fifth respondent is hereby dismissed. Each party to meet own costs.
DELIVERED AND SIGNED AT HOMA BAY THIS 28TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2022
KIARIE WAWERU KIARIE
JUDGE