[2025] KEHC 2856 (KLR)
The court held that the powers to prosecute are vested in the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions (ODPP) by Article 157 of the Constitution, and that the court should not interfere with the exercise of those powers unless there is clear evidence of abuse of process or actions contrary to public interest....
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2025] KEHC 2856 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Republic; Defendant: Isaiah Muriungi M’Kairemia
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Meru
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Criminal Case E088 of 2024
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Case / Ruling on Application to Defer Plea Taking
- Outcome
- application dismissed
- Judges
- HM Nyaga
- Legal Topics
- Prosecutorial Discretion, Plea Taking, Abuse of Process, Right to Fair Trial
- 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
Applicant
Isaiah Muriungi M’Kairemia
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Criminal Case / Ruling on Application to Defer Plea Taking
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the court should defer plea taking at the request of the accused.
- 2 Whether the court can direct the prosecution file to be reviewed by the Regional office of the ODPP.
- 3 Whether the prosecution of the accused amounts to an abuse of process or is contrary to public interest.
Ratio Decidendi
The court held that the powers to prosecute are vested in the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions (ODPP) by Article 157 of the Constitution, and that the court should not interfere with the exercise of those powers unless there is clear evidence of abuse of process or actions contrary to public interest. In this case, the accused failed to demonstrate that his prosecution was an abuse of process or contrary to the law. The court found that the accused's request to have the prosecution file reviewed by the Regional office of the ODPP was an attempt to take charge of his own prosecution, which is not permissible. The accused is entitled to challenge the evidence during trial, not...
Court Disposition
application dismissed
Orders
- The application by the accused to defer plea taking is dismissed.
- The accused shall proceed to take plea.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
30 paragraphs
Republic v M’Kairemia (Criminal Case E088 of 2024) [2025] KEHC 2856 (KLR) (4 March 2025) (Ruling)
Neutral citation: [2025] KEHC 2856 (KLR)
Republic of Kenya
In the High Court at Meru
Criminal Case E088 of 2024
HM Nyaga, J
March 4, 2025
Between
Republic
Prosecution
and
Isaiah Muriungi M’Kairemia
Accused
Ruling
1. In an unusual application, the Accused has sought to defer the plea taking herein.
2. Counsel for the Accused states that the accused has been following up on the investigations in the matter and that forensic analysis of accused’s phone returned negative results.
3. The Accused seeks to have the reasons for him being charged availed to him. He says that he is a politician and that the intended charge is a play to bar him from running for office. He thus asks that the prosecution file be sent to the Regional office of the ODPP for review.
4. The Application was opposed by the Prosecution counsel. He argues that the ODPP is granted powers by the constitution to charge anyone in court and the court ought not to interfere with that power. It is further argued that if the accused has a case he should present it to the Regional office himself and if successful a nolle prosequi will be ordered. The Prosecuting counsel urged the court to discuss the application.
5. Under Article 157 of the constitution the office of the Director of Public Prosecution is granted prosecution powers. It states as follows:-(to cite)
6. Ordinarily, the court ought not to interfere with the functions of an independent institution unless it is proved that the exercise of such function is an abuse of office, is not in the public interest.
7. Thus, the court ought to refrain from micro-managing other constitutional or statutory bodies (offices in their day to day functions)
8. In the instant case, the intended accused is seeking to have the file taken to the Regional office of the ODPP.
9. Under Article 157 (a) of the constitution the powers of the Director of Public prosecution maybe exercised in person or by subordinate officials acting in accordance with general or special instructions.
10. It follows that if the ODPP office in Meru has found it necessary to charge the accused that decision is lawful. This court cannot stop the prosecution of the accused, unless it is shown that the arraignment of the accused in court is an abuse of the legal process or is against public interest or the administration of justice.
11. Looking at the matter there is really nothing to show that the arraignment of the accused in court is anything contrary to the law.
12. In my view the Accused wants to take charge of his own prosecution, which is an unacceptable position. He like any other accused, ought to seek the evidence to be adduced against him in the trial itself. That right is guaranteed by the constitution.
13. For the foregoing reasons, I find the application by the Accused to lack any merit and it is dismissed.
14. That said, the court retains the powers, when property moved and evidence tendered to stay any prosecution of any person, if it is shown that as stated, it is an abuse of the legal process.
15. The Accused should proceed to take plea.
SIGNED, DATED AND DELIVERED AT MERU THIS 4TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025. H. M. NYAGAJUDGE