https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/7660

Republic v Langton Investments Ltd & 2 others (Judicial Review Application E312 of 2025) [2026] KEHC 7660 (KLR) (Judicial Review) (14 May 2026) (Judgment) Neutral citation: [2026] KEHC 7660 (KLR) Republic of Kenya In the High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts) Judicial Review Judicial Review Application E312 of 2025 JM Chigiti, J May 14, 2026 IN THE MATTER OF AN APPLICATION FOR JUDICIAL REVIEW PROCEEDINGS FOR AN ORDER OF PROHIBITION AND IN THE MATTER OF NAIROBI/BLOCK 219/48, 219/49, 219/50, 219/51, 219/52 & 219/53 AND IN THE MATTER OF: THE MILIMANI CHIEF MAGISTRATE’S COURT CRIMINAL CASE NO. E857 OF 2024 Between Republic Applicant and Langton Investments Limited 1st Respondent The Chief Magistrate, Criminal Division, Milimani Law Courts 2nd Respondent The Director Of Public Prosecutions 3rd Respondent Judgment 1.The Applicant herein filed an Application dated 30th September 2025 wherein he is seeking the following orders:1.That this Honourable Court be pleased to issue an order of Prohibition to prohibit the Respondents jointly and severally from hearing, determining and/or proceeding with the hearing of Milimani Chief Magistrates Criminal Case No. E857 of 2024 against the ex-parte Applicant pending the hearing and determination of Milimani ELCLC E 177 OF 2024, ELCLC E239 OF 2024, ELCLC NO. E 285 OF 2024, ELC NO. E 139 OF 2023 and ELC EOIO OF 2024 [OS] Thika ELC No. E 112 of 2024.2.That the Respondents be condemned to pay the costs of this Application together with the Application for leave to commence this Motion. The Applicant’s case 2.The Applicant is facing charges before the 2nd Respondent in Criminal Case No. E 857 of 2024 with three counts to wit conspiracy to defraud, forgery and obtaining registration by false pretense before the 2nd Respondent. It is his case that the criminal charges levelled against him revolve around the ownership of property known as L.R. No. 28401 which was previously registered in the name of the 1st Respondent but has since been subjected to six subdivisions to wit Nairobi Block 21948,Nairobi/Block 219/49, Nairobi/Block 219/50, Nairobi/Block 219/51, Nairobi/Block 219/52 and Nairobi/Block 219/53 respectively and transferred in favour of Meron Limited who is the current registered owner of the six sub-plots. 3.It is the Applicant’s case that there are currently pending before the Environment and Land Court division of the High Court at Milimani a number of court cases relating to the ownership of the suit properties, namely ELCLC/E177 of 2024 [Nairobi City County Vs Langton Investments Ltd & Another], ELCLC E239 of 2024 [James Karimi Waiganjo & Another Vs County Government of Nairobi & 4 Others], ELCLC No. E 285 of 2024 [Kohlenberg Foundation Vs Langton Investments Ltd & 3 Others], ELC No. E 139 of 2023 [Langton Investments Ltd Vs Meron Ltd & 2 Others] and ELCLOS No. E 010 of 2024 [Stephen Otieno Owino & 2 Others Vs Meron Limited & another]. 4.The substratum of the aforesaid suits hinges on the ownership of L.R. No. 28401 and in particular, whether the 1st Respondent's alleged interest in the suit property subsists more so after the suit property was subdivided and sold to a Third Party to wit Melon Limited. 5.In ELC No. E 177 OF 2024, the Nairobi City County has challenged the legality of the 1st Respondent's ownership interest in L.R. No. 28401 and has sought for orders inter-alia the cancellation of all entries relating to the transfer of the suit property to the 1st Respondent and a declaration that the suit property has since reverted to the Government and is therefore public land. 6.In ELC No. E 139 OF 2023 [Langton Investments Ltd Vs Meron Limited & 2 Others], the 1st Respondent herein has instituted proceedings against Meron Limited [the registered owner of the sub-plots] seeking declaratory orders for inter-alia that it is the registered owner of the suit property, being L.R. No. 28401 and for the cancellation of the certificate of titles issued to Meron Limited pursuant to the sub-division of the suit property. 7.In ELC No. E 239 of 2024, one James Karimi Waiganjo & Another have instituted proceedings against the 1st Respondent herein & Others seeking several orders principally to be declared as the legal owners of L.R. No. 28401. 8.In ELC No. E 285 OF 2024, one Kohlenberg Foundation has sought orders as against the 1st Respondent & Others for orders inter-alia to be declared as the lawful registered proprietor of L.R. No. 28401 [the suit property] which it claims was originally known as L.R. No. 18068. 9.In ELC No. E 010 of 2024 [OS], one Stephen Otieno Owino & others [suing as officials & members of Yasego Society] have sought orders as against the 1st Respondent to be declared to have acquired ownership interest in the suit property, being L.R. No. 28401 by way of adverse possession having been in occupation of the suit property for a period of over 12 years. 10.It is his case that the afore-mentioned suits are pending hearing and determination before the Environment and Land Court at Milimani. The pertinent issue raised in suits is the determination of who amongst the more than six Claimants is the legitimate owner of the suit property. He argues that pending the hearing and determination of the aforesaid suits, the 1st Respondent cannot purport to be the legal owner of the suit property as it purports to allege by virtue of various statements recorded with the 3rd Respondent by its directors. Further, he argues that it would defeat the principle of natural justice and fairness to be prosecuted by the Respondents herein in the criminal case aforesaid before the Environment and Land Court determines with finality who amongst the six claimants is the legitimate owner of the suit property. 11.The Applicant urged that Meron Limited has been issued by the Chief Land Registrar with Certificate of titles in respect of the six sub-plots excised from L.R. No. 28401, being Nairobi/Block 219148-53. That the High Court at Milimani in ELC JR Application No. E 001 of 2024 has in its Ruling delivered on 5th February, 2025 issued an order of Certiorari quashing a previous decision by the Registrar of Titles which purported to cancel and revoke the leases and certificates of titles that had been issued in favour of Meron Limited in respect to the said titles. The crux of the aforesaid decision according to the Applicant tentatively reverted the ownership of the suit properties in the name of Meron Limited whose representatives are not parties and/or witnesses in the criminal case currently pending before the 2nd Respondent. 12.It is his case that the charges levelled against him in the aforesaid criminal case presupposes that the 1st Respondent is the registered owner of L.R. No. 28401, which is a fallacy, since the suit property has since ceased to exist upon the sub-division of the said parcel and subsequent transfer of the sub-plots to Meron Limited. He argues that Count III of the statement of Charge purports that he procured for himself registration of a provisional Certificate of title for the suit property, being L.R. No. 28410 at the Ministry of Lands, which purported offence points fingers at the office of the Chief Land Registrar as an accomplice and it is only during the hearing of the aforesaid ELC matters, where the Chief Land Registrar is a party, that sufficient evidence would be adduced to rebut and/or support the allegation of whether he procured the aforesaid title to himself as alleged. 13.It is his case that the issues as to who authorized the sub-division of L.R. No. 28401 and the subsequent sale of the sub-plots to Melon Limited will be litigated upon before the aforesaid pending cases at the Environment and Land Court where the 1st Respondent is a party. 14.He argues that the issue as to whether he forged the CR12 of the 1st Respondent and procured for himself the registration of a Provisional Certificate of title for L.R. No. 28401 are all issues for determination in the ELC matters aforesaid since the Chief Land Registrar would have to adduce evidence of how he was able, if at all, to procure the registration of a provisional Certificate as alleged and yet he is not an employee at the Ministry of Lands . 15.He argues that the institution of the criminal case before the 2nd Respondent is malicious and meant to pre-empt the 2nd Respondent into issuing a favorable judgment in favour of the 1st Respondent before the determination of the ELC matters aforesaid. 16.He argues that he is likely to be prejudiced if the criminal proceedings commence and subsequently is determined before the ELC matters are concluded given that the ELC cases seek to determine the legal owner of the suit property. 17.It is further his case that in the event it is determined that the 1st Respondent is not the legal owner of the suit property, the substratum of the charges levelled against him before the 2nd Respondent would be rendered untenable and frivolous. Ex Parte Applicants’ Submission 18.Counsel reiterated the contents of the affidavit with regards to the facts underlying the Application and urged that the institution of the criminal case before the 2nd Respondent is malicious and meant to pre-empt the 2nd Respondent into issuing a favorable judgment in favour of the 1st Respondent, before the determination of the ELC matters aforesaid. Reliance was placed on Republic Vs the Chief Magistrate, Kibera, Nairobi [Ex-parte Hezron Kamau Waithaka] Misc. App. No. 678 of 2005, in this regard. 19.Counsel urged that the Court's inherent power extends to preventing an abuse of process resulting in oppression even if a party, like the 1st Respondent herein had a prima facie case. The Court does not concern itself with whether or not a fair or unfair trial will ensue or result if the prosecution is not stopped. 20.The Court's sole concern is that its process must be used fairly in the promotion of the administration of justice. Reliance was placed in Misc. App. No. 133 of 2015 [Constitutional & Judicial Review Division] Republic vs the DPP & 2 Others and Kuria & 3 Others Vs Attorney General [2002]2KLR,69. 21.Counsel urged that whereas the mere fact that the facts of the case constitute both criminal and civil liability does not warrant the halting of the criminal case as expounded by the 1st Respondent, citing Republic vs Chief Magistrates Court at Mombasa Ex-Parte Ganijee & Another [2002] 2 KLR, 703 in this regard. Counsel also cited the decision of the Court of Appeal in Commissioner of Police and Director of Criminal Investigations Department Vs Kenya Commercial Bank & Others Nairobi Civil Appeal No. 56 of 2012 [2013] eKLR. 22.He urged that it is very clear from the above authorities that the action of the 1st Respondent of instituting criminal charges against the Ex-parte Applicant is motivated by an ulterior motive, to achieve objects unconnected with the purpose of the criminal law process, namely to obtain a collateral advantage over the Ex-Parte Applicant so that it could settle the claim quickly. 23.Counsel cited Republic vs Chief Magistrates Law Courts, Nairobi & 2 Others [Ex-parte Azim Jiwa Raiwani [Misc. Appli No. 1544 of 2004] in support of these submissions. 24.On prohibition, Counsel cited Republic vs Director of Public Prosecutions & 3 Others Ex-parte George Kuria Mwaura [2015] eKLR and urged that the issue as to whether the 1st Respondent herein lawfully acquired proprietorship of the suit property is an issue for determination in ELC No. E 285 of 2024. Counsel urged that the grounds relied upon by the 1st Respondent have been fully addressed by the authorities cited and prayed that the Application be dismissed with costs. The 1st Respondent’s case 25.In its grounds of opposition it argues that;1.There is no jurisdiction to issue an order of prohibition in the circumstances of the case.2.The ex-parte Applicant has not met the test for the grant of an order of prohibition for the reasons set out below:a.An order of prohibition does not lie to correct the course, practice or procedure of an inferior tribunal nor to correct a wrong decision on the merits of the proceedings. Reliance is placed in the case of the Court of Appeal in Kenya National Examination Council versus Republic Ex-Parte Geoffrey Gathenji Njoroge & 9 others [1997] eKLR.b.That the ex-parte Applicant has not demonstrated that the 2nd Respondent has acted in excess of its jurisdiction, in contravention of the law or contrary to the rules of natural justice.c.It has not been demonstrated that there is any risk of the Magistrates Court stepping out of its jurisdiction.d.The criminal proceedings are not in the circumstances an abuse of process having regard to the fact that there is a serious allegation that the ex-parte Applicant has never been a director of the 1st Respondent and would therefore not have had the authority to deal with its property being L.R. No. 28401. He has not challenged these matters. 26.According to the 1st Respondent, Section 193A of the Criminal Procedure Code is to the following effect:“Notwithstanding the provisions of any other written law, the fact that any matter in issue in any criminal proceedings is also directly or substantially in issue in any pending civil proceedings shall not be a ground for any stay, prohibition or delay of the criminal proceedings" 27.The existence of civil suits raising different issues is not a bar to the criminal case. 28.The 1st Respondents also filed a replying affidavit through David Mucai Kunyiha, a director of the 1st Respondent, on behalf of the company. He argues that the 1st Respondent has been the registered proprietor of all that parcel of land known as Land Reference No. 28401 situate in the city of Nairobi, Roysambu sub-county, along northern by-pass, of Kiambu Road measuring approximately 21.85 hectares as set out in the copy of the certificate of title dated 16th March 2011. 29.It is his case that the 1st Respondent acquired the property from the Registered Trustees of Kohlenberg Foundation (the Foundation). At the time of the acquisition of the property, the title number was Land Reference No. 18068. One of the terms in the agreement for sale between the 1st Respondent and the Foundation dated 6th March 1998 was that the user of the property would be extended to permit residential development. The extension was to be obtained by the Foundation. 30.By a letter dated 6th July 1998, acting for the vendor and the purchaser, directed the 1st Respondent to make the Application for the extension of use to permit residential development. The purchase price was paid to Kaplan & Stratton through a cheque on 17th June 1999 and the transfer was dated 18th June 1999. 31.In order to complete all the conditions for effecting the change of use from educational to residential development, the 1st Respondent surrendered the original grant No I.R 57907 (certificate of title) for the property to the Ministry of Lands who then issued the certificate of title which was registered as Land Reference No. 28401. 32.The 1st Respondent immediately took possession and has at all material times retained possession. It is his case that the neighbour's employees have, with the 1st Respondent's consent, been farming on the property since then to date and the property has never been acquired by anyone else. The land rent and land rates in respect of the property have been fully paid to date. 33.He urged that by a letter dated 16th May 2023, the Nairobi City Council confirmed that the land rates per the land rates invoice dated 24th March 2023 had been settled. The invoice and account are erroneously in the name of the registered trustees of the Foundation which was yet to be changed. 34.He stated that in the year 2020, the 1st Respondent discovered through its company secretary, Highway Registrars who were carrying out a search to confirm the linking of the Business Registration Service (BRS) account to the beneficial owners that its BRS portal had been fraudulently interfered with by unknown people, changing the directorship of the company without its knowledge or consent. 35.By a letter dated 3rd March 2020 the 1st Respondent's company secretary wrote to the BRS requesting them to investigate the matter and facilitate the correction of the details of directors and shareholders. 36.By a search dated 16th April 2020 the company secretary confirmed that the changes had been rectified. By a letter dated 15th April 2021, the 1st Respondent's company Secretary indicated that there was another attempt to change the directors and shareholders of the company. This led to the institution of investigations with the Directorate of Criminal Investigations (DCI) and the publishing of a caveat emptor public notice in the Daily Nation newspaper edition of 21st April 2021. 37.On 7th July 2023, he got information from a neighbour, Francis Michuki, that subdivisions of the property were being offered for sale. He sent two documents, the letter dated 26th June 2023 from the Directorate of Survey and Mapping (RIM amendments) and a subdivision scheme. 38.The 1st Respondent confirmed that the property was in the process of being subdivided by way of a letter dated 26th June 2023 from the Directorate of Survey and Mapping and that the property had been subdivided into six new parcels. 39.By a letter dated 11th July 2023 the advocates wrote to the Director of Survey requesting that the illegal subdivision be cancelled urgently. By a letter dated 11th July 2023 its advocates lodged a complaint with the Land Fraud Investigation Unit of the DCI in relation to the property. He recorded a statement with DCI on 18th August 2023. 40.The 1st Respondent thereafter contracted Ollaro Electric Fencing Company ("the contractor") to erect an electric fence on the property. A director of the contractor visited the site on 18th October 2023 with a view to starting the construction. Upon arrival on the suit property, the contractor's team was confronted by a group of unknown people who harassed their crew, stole and destroyed their equipment. They reported the incident to the Marurui Police Station and the incident was booked under OB number 11/21/10/2023. 41.On 29th October 2023, the contractor visited the site to prepare to continue with the erection of the electric fence when his team noticed some poles had been erected around the perimeter of the property and there were unidentified people continuing to do this. 42.This development was reported to the DCI who arrived at the site and arrested one person. The rest of the unidentified persons managed to escape. An advocate retained by Meron Limited, allegedly the registered proprietor of the property, called to indicate that his services had been retained to represent the person in custody. The advocate was to meet the DCI on 30th October 2023 but did not avail themselves at their offices. 43.The 1st Respondent did not transfer the property to Meron Limited or to anyone. On 31st October 2023, the 1st Respondent filed Nairobi Environment and Land Court Case No. E139 of 2023 Langton Investments Limited versus Meron Limited, the Chief Land Registrar and the Director Land Administration. 44.Meron Limited filed a defence in Nairobi Environment and Land Court Case No. E139 of 2023 where they alleged that they had entered in a joint venture agreement with the 1st Respondent. The defence alleges that the 1st Respondent agreed to transfer the property to Meron Limited as the special purpose vehicle for the alleged joint venture. Anthony Wachira testified on behalf of Meron Limited in Nairobi Environment and Land Court Case No. E139 of 2023 on 8th November 2024 when he produced Meron Limited's list and bundle of documents dated 14th June 2024. 45.In the list and bundle of documents dated 14th June 2024, Meron Limited attached the joint venture agreement dated 5th April 2023 allegedly entered into with the 1st Respondent. That it is clear from the joint venture agreement dated 5th April 2023 that the ex-parte Applicant signed the joint venture agreement on behalf of the 1st Respondent despite not being a director or authorised signatory of the 1st Respondent. 46.In his cross-examination, Anthony Wachira stated that the ex-parte Applicant presented himself as a director of the 1st Respondent to Meron Limited. When he was asked whether Meron Limited conducted a company search on the 1st Respondent, Anthony Wachira testified that the ex-parte Applicant provided Meron Limited with a copy of the 1st Respondent's CR-12 which showed that he was a director of the 1st Respondent. Anthony Wachira testified that he had been in touch with the ex-parte Applicant but Meron Limited would not be calling him to testify on the forged CR-12. 47.It is his case that Nairobi Environment and Land Court Case No. E139 of 2023 is scheduled to continue on 24th and 31st October 2025 and that it is the 1st Respondent's case that the instant suit has been filed to avoid a judgment in the criminal case before the decision in Nairobi Environment and Land Court Case No. E139 of 2023. The ex-parte Applicant has never been a director or shareholder of the 1st Respondent and falsely represented himself as a director to Meron Limited. 48.The ex-parte Applicant was charged with three counts in Milimani Chief Magistrates Criminal Case No. E857 of 2024 Republic versus Francis Muhuhu Ndinguri. None of the matters, the subject of these charges are for determination in any of the civil suits. 49.The criminal case is not about the ownership of Land Reference Number 28401 or any subdivision thereof. Count 1 concerns whether the ex-parte Applicant conspired to defraud the 1st Respondent of Land Reference Number 28401. The real issue is whether the ex-parte Applicant has ever been a director of the 1st Respondent and if he was entitled to obtain a provisional certificate of title over Land Reference Number 28401. 50.All the cases with the exception of Nairobi Environment and Land Court Case No. E139 of 2023 have been instigated by Meron Limited. The ex-parte Applicant has distorted the facts in that Meron Limited maintains in Nairobi Environment and Land Court Case No. E139 of 2023, it is in a joint venture agreement with the 1st Respondent and is not the beneficial owner of the property. 51.It is further his case that there is no truth in the allegation that the institution of the criminal case before the 2nd Respondent is malicious and meant to pre-empt the 2nd Respondent into issuing a favourable judgment in favour of the Respondents. The ex-parte Applicant, has filed this Application to delay justice. 52.He argues the following series of cases touch on the ownership of the property:a.Nairobi ELC Case No. E153 of 2023 - Meron Limited versus Martin Nginge, Peter Chege Ebson and Langton Investments Limited. The suit was withdrawn on 22nd November 2023.b.Nairobi ELC Case Number E156 of 2023 - Geoffrey Nganga Ngungi versus Meron Limited & Langton Investments. The suit was struck out on 23rd April 2024.c.Nairobi Chief Magistrates Court Environment and Land Case Number E474 of 2023 – Meron Limited versus Joseph Gitau Kungu and Geoffrey Ng'ang'a. The suit was struck out on 29th December 2023.d.Nairobi Judicial Review Application Number E001 of 2024 - Republic versus Registrar of Titles Nairobi & Langton Investments Limited ex-parte Meron Limited. A ruling was delivered on 5th February 2025 by Mwangi J issuing an order of certiorari quashing the decision by the Registrar of Titles to revoke and cancel the leases and certificates of title in respect of the 6 subdivisions. This was purely on the question of the powers on cancellation being for the courts only. The Registrar of Titles Nairobi has appealed that decision to the Court of Appeal, and they are waiting for directions on the hearing of the appeal.e.Nairobi Environment and Land Court Case Number E285 of 2024 - Kohlenberg Foundation versus Langton Investments Limited, Meron Limited, Yasego Squatters & Chief Land Registrar. The suit was struck out on 25th November 2024.f.Nairobi Environment and Land Court Case Number E177 of 2024 - Nairobi City County versus Langton Investments Limited & Meron Limited. This suit was struck out on 16th January 2025.g.Nairobi Environment and Land Court Case Number E010 of 2024 - Stephen Otieno Owino, Joyce Nyakero & George Kimutai (Suing as the officials and members of the YASEGO Society) versus Meron Limited & Langton Investments Limited. The suit is pending in court.h.Nairobi Environment and Land Court Case Number E239 of 2024 - James Karimi Waiganjo & Robinson Kahura Mburu versus County Government of Nairobi, Fairview Investments. 53.In his further Affidavit, David Mucai Kunyiha had deponed that the dispute relating to the ownership and subdivision of land reference Number 28401, was determined on 4th March 2026 in Nairobi Environment and Land Court Case Number - E139 of 2023 - Langton Investment Limited versus Meron Limited, The Chief Land Registrar and the Director Land Administration. The 2nd Respondent’s case 54.The 2nd Respondent reproduced the provisions of Section 193A of the Criminal Procedure Code and urged that it is its case that the Application seeks to circumvent the well-established criteria for granting prohibition orders as articulated in Kenya National Examination Council v Republic Ex-Parte Geoffrey Gathenji Njoroge & 9 others [1997] eKLR, which requires demonstration of excess jurisdiction or contravention of natural justice rules. 55.It argues that the criminal proceedings in Case No. E857 of 2024 involve serious allegations of fraud, forgery and obtaining registration by false pretense which warrant expeditious prosecution in the public interest without undue delay. 56.The existence of parallel civil proceedings concerning the same property does not create a legal impediment to criminal prosecution, as the two proceedings serve distinct purposes and are governed by different procedural regimes. The ex-parte Applicant has failed to demonstrate any concrete prejudice beyond the mere inconvenience of defending multiple proceedings, which cannot constitute sufficient ground to prohibit legitimate criminal prosecution. 57.Further, it is argued the 2nd Respondent is exercising judicial functions vested by law cannot properly substitute its discretion for that of the trial court absent clear jurisdictional error or violation of natural justice principles. 58.The Applicant's apprehensions regarding the criminal proceedings are purely speculative and premature as the trial has not commenced and no jurisdictional issues have arisen to warrant judicial intervention. It argues that should any jurisdictional concerns arise during the criminal proceedings, the Applicant has adequate remedies available through objections at trial, appeal, or revision proceedings under Section 362 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The 2nd Respondent’s submissions 59.The 2nd Respondent submitted that under Article 157(6) of the Constitution, the DPP is mandated to institute and undertake criminal proceedings against any person before any court. 60.Counsel cited the cases of Pauline Raget Adhiambo Agot v DPP and 5 Others (2010) Petition No. 446 of 2015, and Republic v The Commissioner of Police & the Director of Public Prosecution Ex parte Michael Monari & Another Misc. Application No. 68 of 2011, Nairobi in this regard. 61.Counsel cited Articles 157(4) and 157(11) of the Constitution of Kenya and urged that the arraignment of the Petitioner in Court followed the due process, the DPP was presented with a complete investigative file and made the Decision to Charge – this decision was not made on a whim but guided by the Constitution, the ODPP Act, 2012 and the Decision to Charge Guidelines. 62.The DPP in its Guidelines on the Decision to Charge, 2019 (the Guidelines to charge) also correctly captured the role of the prosecutor once investigations are completed. The Respondent in making the decision to charge the petitioner acted within his constitutional mandate. Upon concluding investigations, the DCI established that there was a reasonable suspicion that an offence had been committed, hence prompting them to forward the investigation file to the 2nd Respondent for review and directions. 63.It relies on the case of Cascade Company Limited vs Kenya Association of Music Production (KAMP) & Others, Petition No. 7 of 2014 High court, Murang’a and urged that Section 193A of the Criminal Procedure Code Mandates Civil proceedings to be heard concurrently with any criminal matter. 64.He cited Mason CJ in William and Others v Spautz [1993] 2 LRC 659 as well. Further, that it is an established principle that where a party alleges a breach of fundamental rights and freedoms, he or she must state and identify the rights with precision and how the same have been or will be infringed in respect to him. Reliance was placed on Leonard Otieno v Airtel Kenya Limited [2018] eKLR . 65.The Respondent submitted that the Applicant shall enjoy the right to equal protection in any court of law and a fair administrative process. Analysis and determination. 66.The following are the issues for determination:1.Whether the Application has merit.2.Who should shoulder costs. 67.In determining the Application, the court is guided by the case of Republic v Principal Kadhi, Mombasa Ex-parties Alibhai Adamali Dar & 2 others; Murtaza Turabali Patel (Interested Party) [2022] eKLR, where the Court rendered itself thus:“The Order of "Prohibition" issues where there are assumptions of unlawful jurisdiction or excess of jurisdiction. It's an order from the High Court directed to an inferior tribunal or body as in this case the Kadhi’s Court. Its functions is to prohibit and/or forbids encroachment into jurisdiction and further to prevent the implementation of orders issued when there is lack of jurisdiction."Although prohibition was originally used to prevent tribunals from meddling with cases over which they had no jurisdiction, it was equally effective and equally often used, to prohibit the execution of some decision already taken but ultra vires. So long as the tribunal or administrative authority still had power to exercise as a consequence of the wrongful decision, the exercise of that power could be restrained by prohibition. Certiorari and prohibition frequently go hand in hand, as where certiorari is sought to quash the decision and prohibition to restrain its execution. But either remedy may be sought by itself." 68.In the case of Kenya National Examination Council versus Republic ex parte Geoffrey Gathenji Njoroge & 9 others [1997] eKLR, the Court stated the grounds upon which such an order of prohibition may issue as follows;“What does an order of prohibition do and when will it issue" It is an order from the High Court directed to an inferior tribunal or body which forbids that tribunal or body to continue proceedings therein in excess of its jurisdiction or in contravention of the laws of the land. It lies, not only for excess of jurisdiction or absence of it but also for a departure from the rules of natural justice. It does not, however, lie to correct the course, practice or procedure of an inferior tribunal, or a wrong decision on the merits of the proceedings – See HALSBURY&39; S LAW OF ENGLAND, 4th Edition, and Vol.1 at pg. 37 paragraphs 128”. 69.In the case of George Joshua Okungu and Another v Chief Magistrate’s Court Anti-Corruption Court at Nairobi and Another (2014) eKLR Korir J. stated:“The mere fact that the intended or ongoing criminal proceedings are in all likelihood bound to fail, it has been held time and again, is not a good defence for halting those proceedings. That a petitioner has a good defence in the criminal process is a ground that ought not to be relied upon by a court in order to halt criminal process undertaken bona fides since that defence is always open to the Petitioner in those proceedings. However, if the petitioner demonstrates that the intended or ongoing criminal proceedings constitute an abuse of process and are being carried out in breach of or threatened breach of the Petitioner’s Constitutional rights, the Court will not hesitate in putting a halt to such proceedings…” 70.Article 157 of the Constitution provides that:-“The Director of Public Prosecution shall not require the consent of any person or authority for the commencement of criminal proceedings and in the exercise of his or her powers or functions, shall not be under the direction or control of any person or authority.” 71.Where an Applicant demonstrated that the criminal proceedings constitute an illegality or abuse of process, this Court would not hesitate in putting a halt to such proceedings, as that fall squarely within its mandate as a judicial review Court. 72.The cases of Peter Ngunjiri Maina v DPP & 2 Others (2017) eKLR, and R v DPP & 2 Others Ex parte Nomoni Saisi (2016) eKLR identified various scenarios that would require interrogation to warrant a review of the unfettered discretion of the Director of Public Prosecutions as follows:a.Where there is an abuse of discretion;b.Where the decision-maker exercises discretion for an improper purpose;c.Whether decision-maker is in breach of the duty to act fairly;d.Whether decision-maker has failed to exercise statutory discretion reasonably;e.Where the decision-maker acts in a manner to frustrate the purpose of the Act donating the power;f.Where the decision-maker fetters the discretion given;g.Where the decision-maker fails to exercise discretion; andh.Where the decision-maker is irrational and unreasonable. 73.The Applicant has not made out a case for the grant of the order of prohibition. 74.The Applicant relied heavily the fact that there are Civil suits pending then the proceedings in the criminal court would prejudicial to him. It is this court’s finding and I so hold that the concurrent existence of the impugned criminal proceedings and civil proceedings would not, ipso facto, constitute an abuse of the process of the court as recognized by Section 193A of the Criminal Procedure Code; unless the commencement of the criminal proceedings is meant to force the Applicant to submit to the civil claim in which case the institution of the criminal process would have been for the achievement of a collateral purpose other than its legally recognized aim. 75.The Applicant has failed to demonstrate that the civil cases were filed for the sole objective and the purpose of the achievement of a collateral purpose other than its legally recognized aim. 76.The role of the different players in the criminal process was recognized in Republic vs Commissioner of Police and Another ex parte Michael Monari& Another, [2012] eKLR where it was held that:“the police have a duty to investigate on any complaint once a complaint is made. Indeed, the police would be failing in their constitutional mandate to detect and prevent crime. The police only need to establish reasonable suspicion before preferring charges. The rest is left to the trial court. The predominant reason for the institution of the criminal case cannot therefore be said to have been the vindication of the criminal justice. As long as the prosecution and those charged with the responsibility of making the decisions to charge act in a reasonable manner, the High Court would be reluctant to intervene”. 77.The Applicant has not demonstrated how the Director of Public Prosecutions has abused discretion or exercised his discretion for an ulterior or improper objective; or acted in a manner that amounted to a breach of the duty to act fairly; the Respondents have failed to exercise statutory discretion reasonably; or that the Respondents acted in a manner to frustrate the purpose of the Act donating the power, have fettered the discretion given or failed to exercise discretion; or that the Respondent has acted irrational and unreasonable. 78.The Applicant has not demonstrated how the ongoing criminal proceedings constitute an abuse of process and that the prosecution is being carried out in breach of or threatened breach of his Constitutional rights. He has not made out a case for the grant of the order of prohibition of the second reason and I so hold. Costs; 79.In Halsbury’s Laws of England, 4th ed Re-Issue (2010), Vol. 10, para. 16 it states :“The court has discretion as to whether costs are payable by one party to another, the amount of those costs, and when they are to be paid. Where costs are in the discretion of the court, a party has no right to costs unless and until the court awards them to him, and the court has an absolute and unfettered discretion to award or not award them. This discretion must be exercised judicially; it must not be exercised arbitrarily but in accordance with reason and justice” [emphasis supplied]. 80.The Applicant shall shoulder costs. Determination; 81.The Application has no merit. Order: 82.The Application is dismissed with costs. DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED AT ELDORET VIRTUALLY THIS 14TH DAY OF MAY, 2026...........................J. CHIGITI (SC)JUDGE