https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/9962

Republic v Independent Policing Oversight Authority & 3 others; Were & another (Ex parte) (Judicial Review E084 of 2026) [2026] KEHC 9962 (KLR) (Judicial Review) (9 July 2026) (Judgment) Neutral citation: [2026] KEHC 9962 (KLR) Republic of Kenya In the High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts) Judicial Review Judicial Review E084 of 2026 WM Musyoka, J July 9, 2026 Between Republic Applicant and The Independent Policing Oversight Authority 1st Respondent The Director of Public Prosecutions 2nd Respondent The Hon Attorney General 3rd Respondent The Hon. Chief Magistrate’s Court, Makadara 4th Respondent and James Were Ex parte Christopher Thuita Ex parte Judgment 1.These Judicial Review proceedings were initiated under certificate of urgency, by way of an ex parte chamber summons, dated 10th February 2026, in Milimani HCJR Miscellaneous No. E019 of 2026, for leave to commence a Motion for certiorari and prohibition orders, directed at the respondents, to quash the decision to bring criminal proceedings against the ex parte applicants. 2.The ex parte chamber application was placed before Aburili J, on 12th February 2026, and the leave sought was not granted ex parte. It was directed that the application be served, for inter partes hearing on 26th February 2026. The 1st respondent filed a reply, to the ex parte application, vide an affidavit sworn on 23rd February 2026, by Mr. James Were. An inter partes hearing of the ex parte chambers summons was conducted on 26th February 2026, when the Advocates, being Mr. Ogowe for the ex parte applicants, Ms. Mutie for the 1st respondent, Ms. Kihara for the 2nd respondent and Mr. Kariuki for the 3rd and 4th respondents made representations on behalf of their respective clients. A ruling was delivered, on 23rd March 2026, granting the leave sought, and directing that the said grant of leave do operate as a stay. 3.The contemplated Motion was filed herein, following the grant of leave, dated 24th March 2026. It is based on the statutory statement and the supporting affidavit filed at the leave stage. 4.According to the statutory statement, dated 10th February 2026, the ex parte applicants are police officers, who were on duty along Kamukunji Road, when an incident happened, after they got a distress call about a robbery, where Mr. Dominic Mogere Machoni, hereafter the deceased, lost his life, after he was shot by the ex parte applicants, who claim they were defending themselves, from the said deceased person, who was armed with a gun and was firing at them. An inquest file was opened, at the Makadara Law Courts, in 2023, being MCINQ/E025/2023, by the 2nd respondent, after completion of investigations. In 2024, the 1st respondent supplied the 2nd respondent with a report, which recommended the charging of the ex parte applicants with murder. 5.The ex parte applicants complain that the 1st respondent acted unprocedurally and in an ultra vires manner, when he directed the 2nd respondent to arrest and charge them, given that the mandate, to decide on prosecutions, lies with the 2nd respondent, and considering that the 2nd respondent had initiated an inquest. They argue that the 2nd respondent has the mandate to make decisions on whether to commence criminal proceedings, and having filed an inquest, he could only have made the later decision upon the pure influence of the 1st respondent, hence he acted illegally and unprocedurally. 6.The verifying affidavit was sworn by the 1st ex parte applicant, on 10th February 2026. He avers that on 17th June 2022, he and his co- ex parte applicant, received a report, from members of the public, of an ongoing robbery, and they proceeded to the scene. At the scene they encountered the deceased and 3 other men. The deceased was identified by a witness, as one of the assailants, and the ex parte applicants chased after him, as 2 of the other hoodlums escaped. The deceased was firing at them, as they chased him, and they returned fire, in self-defence, and the deceased was fatally wounded in the process. Thereafter, MCINQ/E025/2023 was initiated at the Makadara Law Courts. Later, the 1st respondent presented a report to the 2nd respondent, recommending that the ex parte applicants be charged with the murder of the deceased. They argue that the 1st respondent acted unprocedurally and in an ultra vires manner, given that it was the mandate of the 2nd respondent to decide on matters relating to criminal prosecutions. 7.Several documents are attached to the verifying affidavit. There is a letter, dated 14th November 2023, from the 1st respondent, addressed to the 2nd respondent, requesting that the inquest, in MCINQ/E025/2023, be stayed, to enable the 1st respondent finalise investigations, and the forwarding of its file to the 2nd respondent for perusal and advice. There is a letter, dated, 6th January 2026, from the 1st respondent, addressed to the Nairobi Regional Police Commander, requesting him to arrest No. 231264 Chief Inspector of Police Alphonse Ngundo and No. 224258 Police Corporal Charles Wenani, to be charged with the offence of being accessories after the fact of the murder of the deceased. There is another letter, dated 11th June 2025, from the 2nd respondent, addressed to the 1st respondent, directing that the ex parte applicants be charged with the murder of the deceased, contrary to section 204 of the Penal Code, Cap. 63, Laws of Kenya, and CIP Ngundo and Cpl Wenani with the offence of being accessories after the fact of murder, contrary to section 396(1) of the Penal Code. The 1st respondent is directed to apply, to the court, for stay of proceedings, in MCINQ/E025/2023. There is a copy of the handwritten notes of Hon. J Bett, Senior Resident Magistrate, SRM, presumably made in MCINQ/E025/2023, where the 1st respondent informed the court of the intention to charge the ex parte applicants with murder. The last document is a copy of the cause list, in Makadara Magistrate’s Court, for Monday, 9th February 2026, in respect of the court presided over by Hon. Bett, SRM, when MCINQ/E025/2023 came up for mention. 8.From the record before me, I see only 1 document in reply, being a replying affidavit, sworn on 16th April 2026, by Mr. Paul Njihia, an officer with the 1st respondent, and the lead investigator in the matter. He avers that the 1st respondent received a complaint on 17th June 2022, regarding the death of the deceased, who had allegedly been shot by members of the National Police Service, from Shauri Moyo Police Station, on the same date. The complaint was registered, and forwarded for investigations. Statements were recorded, from prospective prosecution witnesses, and relevant documentary evidence was also gathered. Statements were also recorded from the ex parte applicants, on 12th July 2022 and 31st August 2022. Upon completion of its investigations, the 1st respondent concluded that the ex parte applicants were responsible for the murder of the deceased herein. 9.It is averred that upon reaching that conclusion, and in compliance with section 29(1)(a) of the Independent Policing Oversight Authority Act, Cap. 86, Laws of Kenya, the 1st respondent forwarded its investigative findings and recommendations to the 2nd respondent, with a request for perusal and advice. The 2nd respondent, upon independent review of the file forwarded to him by the 1st respondent, concurred with the recommendations by the 1st respondent, and made his own independent decision, to direct that charges be brought against the ex parte applicants. Whereupon, the 1st respondent wrote to the Nairobi Regional Police Commander, requesting him to facilitate the immediate arrest and arraignment in court of the ex parte applicants. The 1st respondent also wrote to the officer of the 2nd respondent, responsible for the Makadara Law Courts, informing of the decision of the 2nd respondent, to have the inquest, in MCINQ/E025/2023, halted, to pave way for the murder case at the High Court. 10.It is averred, on legal advice, that the 2nd respondent is the custodian of public interest, with respect to criminal proceedings, and holds the authority and power to commence, take over or terminate any criminal proceedings, including inquests, in accordance with Article 157 of the Constitution of Kenya and section 388 of the Criminal Procedure Code, Cap. 75, Laws of Kenya. It is further averred, on legal advice, that the 2nd respondent holds authority and power to make decisions on whom charges are to be brought against, and that, in making the decision relating to the ex parte applicants, he exercised that constitutional duty. It is further averred, on legal advice, that in Ongoto vs. Independent Policing Oversight Authority & another; Obiero & another (Interested Parties) [2025] KEHC 2535 (KLR), the court reaffirmed the constitutional and statutory authority of the 1st respondent to investigate police misconduct, and to forward recommendations to the 2nd respondent, emphasising the investigative and recommendatory role of the 1st respondent, and the independent prosecutorial discretion of the 2nd respondent. 11.It is averred, on legal advice, that the purpose of inquest proceedings is to determine whether a criminal offence had been committed, and to identify the individual culpable for the death, with a view to commencing criminal proceedings. It is argued that the 1st respondent, having conducted investigations, and having found the ex parte applicants liable for the death, the objectives of the inquest proceedings were fulfilled, and continuance of those proceedings would have served no purpose. 12.It is argued that the ex parte applicants have not demonstrated that the 1st respondent acted without or in excess of powers conferred upon it, or it infringed, violated, contravened or in any manner failed to comply with or respect and uphold the provisions of the Constitution and other laws, when it recommended charges against them. 13.Several documents are attached to the affidavit in reply. There is the complaint information, with relation to the killing of the deceased, dated 17th June 2022. There is a copy of a letter that the 1st respondent wrote to the 2nd respondent, dated 25th November 2024, forwarding its duplicate investigation file, together with a report and recommendations. There is a copy of a letter from the 2nd respondent, addressed to the 1st respondent, dated 11th June 2025, acknowledging receipt of the letter of 25th November 2024, directing that charges be brought against the ex parte applicants, and the making of an application for stay of the inquest proceedings in MCINQ/E025/2023. The last document is a copy of a letter, dated 6th January 2026, from the 1st respondent, addressed to the Nairobi Regional Police Commander, requesting for the arrest of the ex parte applicants, for processing and arraignment in court. 14.Directions were given, on 22nd April 2026, for canvassing of the application, by way of written submissions. I have, before me, written submissions placed on record by the ex parte applicants, dated 28th April 2026, and by the 1st respondent, dated 11th May 2026. 15.The written submissions, by the ex parte applicants, identify 2 issues for determination, which turn on whether the orders of certiorari and prohibition ought to issue, as prayed; and whether the 2nd respondent ought to be ordered to complete the inquest lodged in MCINQ/E025/2023. It is submitted that the 1st respondent had directed the 2nd respondent to facilitate the arrest, charging and prosecution of the ex parte applicants, hence the 1st respondent acted outside its mandate. Kenya National Examinations Council; GGN & 9 others (Ex parte) vs. Republic [1997] KECA 58 (KLR) is cited. 16.The written submissions, by the 1st respondent, turn on 5 issues, on whether the application meets the threshold for grant of the prayers sought; whether the purpose of the inquest in MCINQ/E025/2023 has been met; whether the court should restrain itself from handling matters that were not ripe for determination; and whether the accuracy or correctness of the evidence or facts gathered in the investigations could only be assessed and tested by the trial court. Republic vs. Public Procurement Administrative Review Board & another ex parte Intertrek Testing Services (EA) Pty Limited & Authentix Inc; Accounting Officer Energy and Petroleum Regulatory Authority & another [2022] eKLR, Meixner & another vs. Attorney General [2005] KECA 292 (KLR), Legal Advice Centre t/s Kituo Cha Sheria & 2 others vs. Cabinet Secretary, Ministry of Interior Security and Coordination of the National Government & 7 others; Law Society of Kenya & another (Interested Parties) [2025] KEHC 5718 (KLR), Communications Commission of Kenya vs. Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions & another [2018] eKLR, Republic vs. Independent Policing Oversight Authority & 2 others; Nyoka & 2 others (Ex parte) [2025] KEHC 14585 (KLR), Ongoto vs. Independent Policing Oversight Authority & another; Obiero & another (Interested Parties) [2025] KEHC 2535 (KLR), Kemei vs. Director of Public Prosecutions & another [2022] KEHC 12153 (KLR) and Chilango vs. Independent Electoral and Boundaries Commission & 3 others [2022] KEHC 10779 (KLR) are cited. 17.There is only 1 issue for this court to determine, whether the decision to prosecute the ex parte applicants, for murder, was made by the 2nd respondent independently, or upon direction by the 1st respondent. 18.It is common ground that inquest proceedings had been initiated in MCINQ/E025/2023, arising from the death of the deceased herein. It is also common ground that the deceased died from gunshot wounds, with the bullets being discharged from firearms that the ex parte applicants were handling. It is also common ground that the 2nd respondent directed the prosecution of the ex parte applicants, upon the 1st respondent forwarding to him an investigation file which recommended their prosecution. It is also common ground that the 2nd respondent has constitutional and statutory power to direct prosecutions, which power he should exercise independently. 19.The ex parte applicants have no issue with the inquest proceedings in MCINQ/E025/2023, and they would like those proceedings to be conducted to their logical conclusion. Their complaint is that the 1st respondent has somehow belatedly come into the picture, and changed the matrix, by causing the 2nd respondent to abandon the inquest proceedings, and to embark on prosecuting them for murder instead. Their argument is that, in making the decision to have them prosecuted, the 2nd respondent has not acted independently, as required of him by the Constitution, but has acted under the direction of the 1st respondent, hence the said decision was not properly made. 20.I have seen the correspondence that both sides have placed on record. 2 letters are critical, those dated 25th November 2024 and 11th June 2025. 21.The letter, dated 25th November 2024, discloses that the 1st respondent had carried out investigations, upon which it gathered evidence, generated a report and recommended the prosecution of the ex parte applicants, and shared that information with the 2nd respondent. The first question to ask would be whether the 1st respondent had authority to do that which it did, and that is taking up the matter of investigating the killing of the deceased, by the ex parte applicants, and forwarding its investigation file to the 2nd respondent, with recommendations. The ex parte applicants have not raised issue with that. The ex parte applicants are police officers. The 1st respondent is mandated by the statute, the Independent Policing Oversight Authority Act, which establishes it, to investigate misconduct by police officers in the course of discharge of their duties. The ex parte applicants were on duty, when they shot and killed the deceased. A complaint was lodged against them. In the natural course of events, and within its statutory mandate, the 1st respondent was bound to act on that complaint, conduct investigations, and report to the 2nd respondent for further action. That appears to be what the 1st respondent did, in terms of investigations, and reporting to the 2nd respondent. It acted within the scope of its powers, and it has not been demonstrated that those powers were exceeded or abused. 22.The complaint appears to be that the 1st respondent did not just carry out an investigation and forward its file to the 2nd respondent, in fact it directed the 2nd respondent on what to do, and it was, in doing that, that it is accused of abusing its powers, by doing that which it had no power to do, for the 2nd respondent is required, by the Constitution, to act independently. 23.Did the 1st respondent direct the 2nd respondent on what to do, and did the 2nd respondent act on directions from the 1st respondent? The answer to that question should lie with the correspondence exchanged between the 2, which both sides have exhibited. The letter, of 25th November 2024, forwarded the investigation file, a report and recommendations. The report and the recommendations have not been exhibited by either party. The letter says that the 1st respondent had made its recommendations in the report. As that report is not before me, I can only go by the letter. What was recommended is not disclosed, in the letter, but I suppose it is the prosecution of the ex parte applicants. 24.“Recommendation” comes from the verb “to recommend.” Cambridge Dictionary, Cambridge University Press, defines “to recommend” to mean to put forward, or suggest, or vouch for someone or something or an action as being suitable, beneficial or the best choice, based on personal knowledge or expertise. The Merriam-Webster Dictionary defines it as presenting something as worthy of acceptance or trial, or to endorse as fit worthy or competent, or to suggest as advisable. “Recommendation” is defined, by Cambridge Dictionary, as an action or statement that suggests that a person or thing or course of action is suitable beneficial or highly regarded. It is said to function as advice or a favourable endorsement. Its synonyms include advice, approval, endorsement, guidance, judgement, proposal and suggestion. 25.Based on the above, it would be clear that a recommendation would not be binding or directory, but advisory or a suggestion. It would be a proposal, that the person, to whom it is addressed, is not bound to accept or go by, and would have the freedom to decide whether to adopt the recommendation or not. The effect of it is that the 1st respondent is reflected as making recommendations to the 2nd respondent, which should be understood as meaning that the 1st respondent was only making proposals or suggestions to the 2nd respondent, and not directing him on what to do. The 2nd respondent was at liberty to accept or reject the suggestions or proposals or advice given by the 1st respondent. 26.The letter, of 11th June 2025, carries the decision of the 2nd respondent to prosecute the ex parte applicants. It acknowledges that it had received the police file, forwarded vide the letter of 25th November 2024, for “perusal and direction,” that is perusal and direction by the 2nd respondent. Then it sets out the facts, as captured from the investigation file, after which it gives directions, to have the ex parte applicants charged, and the pending inquest stayed. The exact words are as follows: “It is against this basis that you are directed to…” It is the 2nd respondent directing the 1st respondent, by that letter, to act, and not the other way round. I do not see, from the language used, the 2nd respondent acting on the directions of the 1st respondent, instead it is the 2nd respondent who is directing the 1st respondent. 27.As there is no material pointing to the 2nd respondent having acted on the direction of the 1st respondent, and, therefore, in a manner which suggested that he lacked independence, the application herein then loses its foundation. 28.I do not think that I should evaluate the matter on any other parameter, given that the sole allegation is that the 2nd respondent exercised its mandate, to commence criminal proceedings against the ex parte applicants, purely on the influence of the 1st respondent, hence the decision was illegal and unprocedural. The alleged influence has not been demonstrated, and without evidence of that, there would be no basis to argue that the decision of the 2nd respondent was illegal or unprocedural. 29.The functions and powers of the 1st respondent revolve around investigations; hence, the 1st respondent cannot be faulted for conducting investigations. These are captured in sections 6 and 7 of the Independent Policing Oversight Authority Act. 30.Section 6 of the Independent Policing Oversight Authority Act, states:“6.Functions of the Authority.The functions of the Authority shall be to—(a)investigate any complaints related to disciplinary or criminal offences committed by any member of the Service, whether on its own motion or on receipt of a complaint, and make recommendations to the relevant authorities, including recommendations for prosecution, compensation, internal disciplinary action or any other appropriate relief, and shall make public the response received to these recommendations;(b)receive and investigate complaints by members of the Service;(c)monitor and investigate policing operations affecting members of the public;(d)monitor, review and audit investigations and actions taken by the Internal Affairs Unit of the Service in response to complaints against the Police and keep a record of all such complaints regardless of where they have been first reported and what action has been taken;(e)…” 31.Section 7 of the Independent Policing Oversight Authority Act provides:“7.Powers of the Authority.(1)The Authority shall have all the powers necessary for the execution of its functions under this Act, and without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing, the Authority shall have the power—(a)to investigate the Service on its own motion or on receipt of complaints from members of the public, and for that purpose, to gather any information it considers necessary by such lawful means as it may deem appropriate, including by—(i)requisition of reports, records, documents or any information from any source, including from the Police, irrespective of whether that source is located within or outside Kenya and irrespective of whether any other person or body, other than a court of law, has already instituted or completed a similar investigation or similar proceedings;(ii)entering upon any establishment or premises, including Police premises, on the strength of a warrant, and subject to any relevant law, where the premises are a private home or dwelling;(iii)seizing and removing any object or thing from any premises, including Police premises, which may be related to the matter under investigation, and in respect of which a receipt shall be given to the owner or person apparently in control of the object or thing;(iv)interviewing and taking statements under oath or affirmation from any person, group or members of organizations or institutions and, at its discretion, to conduct such interviews in private;(v)summoning any person to meet with its staff, or to attend any of its sessions or hearings, and to compel the attendance of any person who fails to respond to its summons;(vi)administering oaths or affirmations before taking evidence or statements where necessary;(vii)summoning any serving or retired Police officer to appear before it and to produce any document, thing or information that may be considered relevant to the function of the Authority;(viii)ensuring that where necessary, the identities of complainants or witnesses are not disclosed to their detriment;(ix)recommending to the Director of Public Prosecutions the prosecution of any person for any offence;(x)investigating any death or serious injury occurring or suspected of having occurred as a result of police action.(b)to take over on-going internal investigations into misconduct or failure to comply with any law if such investigations are inordinately delayed or manifestly unreasonable;(c)where appropriate, to provide relevant information to enable a victim of unlawful police conduct, to institute and conduct civil proceedings for compensation in respect of injuries, damages and loss of income;(d)require the Director of Public Prosecutions to provide it with his response to any recommendation made by the Authority to prosecute any person or body;(e)require the Service to within a specified, reasonable time, provide it with information on issues relating to policy, its implementation and its effectiveness, and its response to any recommendation made to it by the Authority;(f)subject to the approval of a complainant, and only if it is not a serious complaint, reconcile or mediate on any matter within its mandate; and(g)exercise any other power provided for in this Act or any other law which is necessary for the effective performance of its functions.(2)The Authority may in the exercise of its powers under this Act, request and receive such assistance from the or any other governmental or international body or person as may in its opinion be necessary in the exercise of its powers.(3)The Authority may in exceptional circumstances regarding matters of national importance submit a report simultaneously to the National Assembly and the Cabinet Secretary if such a matter requires urgent consideration for the well-being of the people of Kenya.” 32.Section 24 of the Independent Policing Oversight Authority Act carries detailed provisions on complaints made by members of the public, and on how the 1st respondent is meant to handle them. The provision states:“ 24.Lodging of complaint and investigation. (1)A person wishing to lodge a complaint against the Police may do so orally or in writing or in such other appropriate format as may be prescribed in the regulations.(2)Where a complaint is made orally, the same shall be reduced into writing by the employee of the Authority with whom it is lodged, and that employee shall render all reasonable assistance to the complainant to ensure that a proper investigation of the complaint is done.(3)A complaint made under subsection (1) shall contain such particulars as the Authority may from time to time prescribe.(4)Upon receipt of a complaint the Authority shall forthwith—(a)call for information or reports regarding the complaint from the appropriate Government department or agency or any other body within a specified period; or(b)without prejudice to paragraph (a), initiate such inquiry as it may consider necessary, having regard to the nature of the complaint and taking into account the fundamental rights and freedoms of the individuals concerned, including members of the Police, contemplated in Chapter Four of the Constitution.(5)If criminal proceedings are instituted against a member of the Service in respect of a matter under investigation by the Authority, the Authority may suspend its investigation until the conclusion of those proceedings, after which it may continue its investigation or in appropriate cases, decide to discontinue.(6)In the event of the Police having conducted and concluded an internal investigation or internal disciplinary proceedings, the Authority may in appropriate cases and in its sole discretion decide to abide by the outcome of such investigation or proceedings and adopt the findings and recommendations of that investigation or those proceedings as its own, and conclude its own investigation(7)The Authority shall during an investigation consider the—(a)circumstances which, if present during the incident under investigation, impede the effectiveness of policing; and(b)unlawful action, if any, taken by the complainant, the victim or any other person present during the incident under investigation.(8)Where the Authority considers a complaint to be vexatious or frivolous it may refuse to conduct an investigation.(9)The Authority may upon receipt of new evidence re-open any investigation which has been concluded, and may amend or withdraw any previous findings and recommendations. (10) Nothing in this section shall prevent an individual Police officer from lodging a complaint, but the Authority may, at its discretion, refer any complaint back to the Internal Affairs Unit of the Service for redress.(11)No member of the Police shall be subjected to disciplinary hearings or other disadvantage based solely on the fact that such member has lodged a complaint with or given evidence or information to the Authority.(12)Any person who subjects a Police officer to a disciplinary hearing or other disadvantage based solely on the fact that he has lodged a complaint with or given evidence before or information to the Authority, commits an offence.(13)Nothing in this Act shall prevent any person or body from lodging a complaint in terms of this section, or the Authority from conducting an investigation, even if the target, victim or witness of the action does not agree to or approve of such an investigation by the Authority.(14)Any law providing for the unlawfulness of—(a)the intimidation, harassment or interference with witnesses or potential witnesses to any matter under investigation by the Authority; or(b)concealment, destruction, tampering with or removal of evidence relevant to any matter under investigation by the Authority, shall apply with necessary modifications to the proceedings of the Authority.(15)Notwithstanding any other written law, any document or statement drafted or made or taken during an investigation shall remain confidential until the Authority in writing determines otherwise.(16)The Authority shall upon request from a complainant keep the complaint’s identity confidential unless it is demonstrably in the interest of justice not to do so, until the investigation has been concluded: Provided that the Authority may in exceptional cases determine that the identity of a complainant may not be published even after the conclusion of an investigation, or may be published only on terms determined by the Authority.” 33.The Independent Policing Oversight Authority Act permits involvement of the 1st respondent in investigating death and serious injury to members of the public, caused by police officers, while on duty, regardless of where it happens. That is stated in section 25 of the Act, which provides as follows:“25.Deaths and serious injury in custody.(1)The Authority shall investigate any death or serious injury including death or serious injury while in Police custody, which are the result of Police action or were caused by members of the Service while on duty.(2)The Police shall upon a death or serious injury as contemplated in subsection (1) take all necessary steps to secure evidence which may be relevant for the investigation, including pictorial and written evidence, and shall in writing notify the Authority, and supply it with the evidence and all other facts relevant to the matter, including, if available, the names and contact details of all persons who may be able to assist the Authority should it decide to conduct an investigation.(3)A Police officer who contravenes subsection (2) commits an offence.” 34.Section 29 of the Independent Policing Oversight Authority Act sets out the steps that the 1st respondent should take upon completing investigations, with respect to the material collected during the investigations. It states:“29.Steps after investigations.(1)The Authority may after completing an investigation into a complaint under this Act—(a)where the inquiry, in the Authority’s opinion, discloses a criminal act by a member of the Service, recommend the prosecution of that member to the Director of Public Prosecutions;(b)where the inquiry, in the Authority’s opinion, discloses negligence in the performance of duty by a member of the Service, recommend disciplinary action be taken against such member;(c)where the investigation discloses any shortcomings in the processes or procedures employed by the Authority, recommend improvement or rectification thereof;(d)recommend that the complainant take any other course of action suitable in the circumstances;(e)assist the complainant or any other victim with action contemplated in section 7(1)(i); or (f) take any other steps it may deem fit.(2)The Authority may apply to the court for the enforcement of any of its recommendations contemplated in subsection (1).(3)The Authority’s investigations, findings and recommendations provided for in this Act shall remain in force and effect despite the fact that a person or body—(a)under investigation, has since the commencement or conclusion of an investigation, left the employment of the Police; or(b)is no longer acting on behalf of the, under its control or at its behest.” 35.I have set out all these provisions in extenso, as the complaint, by the ex parte applicants, is centred on the investigations that the 1st respondent had carried out, which culminated in their being charged with murder, on the direction of the 2nd respondent. From what I see from the above provisions, the actions by the 1st respondent were fairly textbook. Everything was done in accordance with the Independent Policing Oversight Authority Act, and I have not seen anything that was done outside of what that Act provides. The placing of the investigation file, before the 2nd respondent, was also textbook. The 1st respondent merely recommended prosecution, to the 2nd respondent, as required of it by the Independent Policing Oversight Authority Act, and, upon review of the material, the 2nd respondent agreed with it, and made the decision, in accordance with his constitutional and statutory mandate, to have the ex parte applicants prosecuted. 36.The mere fact of concurrence, between the 1st respondent and the 2nd respondent, on the prosecution, does not mean that the 1st respondent compelled or coerced or unduly influenced the 2nd respondent to make the decision to prosecute them for murder. The law requires that the 2nd respondent acts on investigations from the 1st respondent. The work of the 2nd respondent is not to carry out any investigations, but to work with investigations done by the police and the 1st respondent. The same law mandates the 1st respondent to make recommendations to the 2nd respondent, based on the investigations that it, the 1st respondent, conducts. 37.Of critical importance is section 25 of the Independent Policing Oversight Authority Act. It relates to death and serious injury caused to members of the public by police officers in the course of duty. It makes it mandatory for the 1st respondent to investigate any case of death or serious injury caused by a police officer on duty. The language is, “The Authority shall investigate any death or serious injury including death or serious injury while in Police custody.” Therefore, once the death of the deceased came to the notice of the 1st respondent, section 25 kicked in, and the 1st respondent was obligated, by that provision, to conduct an investigation into that death. It cannot be the case, therefore, that the 1st respondent materialised out of nowhere, and driven by malice, or ill will, or some nefarious intent, entered the fray, conducted investigations that were not necessary, and caused the ex parte applicants to be charged with murder, to achieve some ulterior objective. The was a statutory foundation, to everything that the 1st respondent did. 38.The ex parte applicants have not sought to raise the issue of lack of foundation for the charges, for they merely argue that they did, indeed, fire the shots which caused the death, but that they acted in self-defence. That could very well be so. However, that alone would not bar investigations being conducted into the incident, and a prosecution being mounted against them. Secondly, it would be their word, that they acted in self-defence, against the word of anyone else, who asserts that they were trigger-happy. There could be evidence that that was not the case, and the truth can only come out in a trial, where the evidence, from both sides, is tested. Investigations have been conducted into the matter, by the 1st respondent, the entity vested with jurisdiction, by section 25 of the Independent Policing Oversight Authority Act, to conduct investigations in deaths that happen in the circumstances in which the deceased died, and the 1st respondent has recommended prosecution, and the authority, responsible for prosecutions, the 2nd respondent, has reviewed the investigations file presented by the 1st respondent, and he is satisfied that there is evidence which would sustain a charge of murder. The 2nd respondent has the constitutional mandate to make that decision, and it is not for the court to intervene, unless there is proof of abuse of process, or something related or similar. I have not come across material, in this case, which points to an incidence of the 1st and 2nd respondents having acted improperly or beyond their powers, in the manner that they have handled this matter. 39.In view of everything said here above, I find and hold that there is no merit in the Motion, dated 24th March 2026. The same is hereby dismissed. The stay order, granted on 23rd March 2026, is hereby discharged. Orders accordingly. DELIVERED, VIA CTS, DATED AND SIGNED IN CHAMBERS, AT MILIMANI, NAIROBI, ON THIS 9TH DAY OF JULY 2026.W MUSYOKAJUDGEMr. Abdirahman, Court Assistant.AdvocatesMr. Ogowe, instructed by Ogowe & Associates, Advocates for the ex parte applicants.Ms. Chepseba/Ms. Makau/Ms. Mogeni, instructed by the Independent Policing Oversight Authority, for the 1st respondent.Mr. Mwandawiro/Ms. Kihara, instructed by the Director of Public Prosecutions, for the 2nd respondent.Mr. Ali, instructed by the Attorney General, for the 3rd and 4th respondents.