[2004] KEHC 1223 (KLR)
The court held that the application lacked merit as it was based on an affidavit containing statements not within the personal knowledge of the deponent and unsupported by evidence. The applicants failed to provide sufficient details or proof of discrimination or abuse of power by the Attorney General in the...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2004] KEHC 1223 (KLR)
- Parties
- Respondent: Republic; Applicant: Joseph Matheri Njau; Applicant: 3 Others
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Criminal Case 66 of 2004
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Application / Ruling on Application for Release And/or Challenge to Prosecution
- Outcome
- application dismissed
- Judges
- KH Rawal
- Legal Topics
- Nolle Prosequi, Personal Liberty, Abuse of Process, Discriminative Prosecution
- 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
Republic
Respondent
Joseph Matheri Njau
Applicant
3 Others
Applicant
Procedural Posture
Criminal Application / Ruling on Application for Release And/or Challenge to Prosecution
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the applicants' continued detention violates their constitutional right to personal liberty.
- 2 Whether the Attorney General's selective filing of nolle prosequi amounts to discrimination or abuse of power.
- 3 Whether the court can quash the information or intervene at this stage based on the affidavit and arguments presented.
Ratio Decidendi
The court held that the application lacked merit as it was based on an affidavit containing statements not within the personal knowledge of the deponent and unsupported by evidence. The applicants failed to provide sufficient details or proof of discrimination or abuse of power by the Attorney General in the exercise of prosecutorial discretion. The court emphasized that it cannot pre-emptively assess the sufficiency of the prosecution's case or quash the information at this stage, especially where the proper procedure under the Criminal Procedure Code was not followed. The balance between personal liberty and public interest, particularly in serious offences such as murder, must be...
Court Disposition
application dismissed
Orders
- The application is dismissed.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
24 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT NAIROBI
CRIMINAL DIVISION
CRIMINAL CASE NO.66 OF 2004
REPUBLIC ……………………………………….. PROSECUTOR
VERSUS
JOSEPH MATHERI NJAU AND 3 OTHERS……. ACCUSSED
RULING
The applicants herein are charged with others with an offence of murder in High Court Cr. Case No.66 of 2004.
It so happened that the Attorney General has seen fit to file Nolle Prosequi in respect some of the Accused persons of the said case (Accused Nos.7 and 8 in specific). The filing thereof resulted in discharge of those two Accused persons by order of 26th July, 2004.
This application was then filed on 28th September, 2004, by four Accused persons (1st to 4th Accused persons in the criminal case.) It is provised under order 72 and 77 of the Constitution and of course all other enabling provisions of law. It is based on the grounds stated on the face of the application and on the affidavit sworn by Mr. Rumba Kinuthia the Learned Counsel for the applicants. The affidavit contains various statement of facts which cannot be within personal knowledge of Mr. Kinuthia but those statements lack the grounds or source of his information. I shall only quote paragraph 3 of the affidavit in support, namely,
“That on the material day the 1st , 2nd, 3rd, and 4th Accused persons were at their home in Karambaini in Kiambu.“ Paragraphs 4, 5, 6 and 7 all similarly contain facts which cannot be within the knowledge of the Learned Counsel.
Furthermore, the said affidavit details reasons why there are gaping holes in the prosecution case against the Accused persons. In other words, Mr. Kinuthia is putting forth his arguments in favour of the applicants before the trial.
I am not surprised when the state/Respondent has thought it fit not to file any replying affidavit in view of the above premises.
Mr. Kinuthia while opening his submissions asked me to go through the bundle of documents filed in Cr. Case 66 of 2004 and, at this stage, to arrive at the conclusion that the information is defective and that the Applicants are denied their right of personal liberty on the strength of charge brought against them.
He also complained on discriminative selection to file nolle prosequi against two accused persons who were jointly charged.
The court has to tread very carefully while balancing between personal liberty of the person and the public interest. The Attorney General is a custodian of the public interest and in this case the applicants were charged, and still are charged with two more accused persons, with a very serious offence.
To make it worse, I have not been given details of the alleged discrimination or abuse of power exercised by the Attorney General. Section 72 of the constitution itself gives the exceptions wherein the liberty of a person can be curtailed.
Furthermore Sec.276(1) of Criminal Procedure Code stipulates the grounds under and the procedure by which an information can be quashed. This application does not seek to do so.
I can only say that a court is not expected and cannot look into statements before hand and arrive at a conclusion in the manner in which it is asked to do. This can be dangerous and very derogatory to the advertial judicial system.
Lest I may be mistaken, I have to make it clear that this court has power to check the abuse of the process by any authority but only upon adequate evidence and under appropriate circumstances. This is not one of such cases and I shall refuse this application. The application is thus dismissed.
Dated and Delivered at Nairobi this 22nd day of November, 2004.
K.H. RAWAL
JUDGE