https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/10228

**REPUBLIC OF KENYA** **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT NAIROBI** **JUDICIAL REVIEW MISCELLANEOUS NO. E086 OF 2026** **REPUBLIC…...…...….…………………………………………….…………….…APPLICANT** **VERSUS** **DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS………………...……1ST RESPONDENT** **DIRECTOR OF CRIMINAL INVESTIGATIONS………………2ND RESPONDENT** **INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE………………………………3RD RESPONDENT** ***EX PARTE*: WILFRED WANYONYI MASINDE & 17 OTHERS** **RULING** 1. When the *ex parte* chamber summons, dated 11th June 2026, was placed before me on 12th June 2026, in chambers, *ex parte*, for consideration of the grant of leave and stay sought, I declined to grant the prayers sought, on the spot, before taking oral submissions from the parties. Consequently, I directed that the filings, dated 11th June 2026 be served on the respondents and the interested party, and that the *ex parte* chamber summons be argued orally on 22nd June 2026. 2. The directions, of 12th June 2026, were complied with, for service was effected, and the parties appeared before me, through their respective Advocates, on 22nd June 2026, who orally urged their respective positions. 3. Mr. Murunga argued the case for the *ex parte* applicants, and urged me to grant the leave sought, and pleaded that I order that the leave, once granted, do operate as a stay of the impugned decision. Mr. Kilonzi addressed me on behalf of one of the *ex parte* applicants, Mr. Davis Mutinda, the 17th *ex parte* applicant. He stated that Mr. Mutinda had instructed him to have his case withdrawn, and to be discharged from the proceedings. As there was no opposition to that request, I proceeded to order that Mr. Mutinda be struck off from the proceedings. 4. Mr. Oruko, for the respondents, opposed the application, and urged me not to grant the leave sought. Mr. Wanjohi appeared for the interested party, and took the position that the interested party was not opposed to the orders sought being granted, but urged that the hearing of the substantive motion be fast-tracked. 5. After hearing the parties on the *ex parte* application, and considering the filings on record, I am persuaded that the *ex parte* applicants, excluding Mr. Mutinda, should be afforded an opportunity to have their day in court, to present their case against the proposed prosecution, for the reasons advanced. I shall, accordingly, grant the leave sought, as I hereby do, in terms of prayers (b) and (c) of the said *ex parte* chamber summons. The leave granted shall be for 7 days, within which the *ex parte* applicants shall file and serve their substantive motion. 6. Upon being served, the respondents and the interested party shall, if so minded, file and serve their respective responses to the said motion, within 7 days, from the date of service. The matter shall be mentioned, on 22nd July 2026, for compliance, and further directions with respect to written submissions. The mention, on 22nd July 2026, shall also serve the purpose of having directions being given, on the closure of this miscellaneous file. 7. In the meantime, the grant of leave, in paragraph 5, above, shall operate as a stay, in terms of prayer (d) of the *ex parte* chamber summons. **DELIVERED VIA CTS, DATED AND SIGNED IN CHAMBERS, AT MILIMANI, NAIROBI, ON THIS 3RD DAY OF JULY 2026.** **W MUSYOKA** **JUDGE** **Mr. Abdirahman, Court Assistant.** **Advocates** **Mr. Murunga, instructed by MAW Advocates LLP, for the *ex parte* applicants.** **Mr. Kilonzi, Advocate for Mr. Davis Mutinda.** **Mr. Oruko, instructed by the Director of Public Prosecutions, for the respondents.** **Mr. Wanjohi, instructed by the Attorney General, for the interested party.**