https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/9267

Republic v ODPP, Makindu Law Courts & 5 others; Mungania (Ex parte Applicant) (Judicial Review E009 of 2025) [2026] KEHC 9267 (KLR) (26 June 2026) (Ruling) Neutral citation: [2026] KEHC 9267 (KLR) Republic of Kenya In the High Court at Makueni Judicial Review E009 of 2025 JN Onyiego, J June 26, 2026 IN THE MATTER OF AN APPLICATION FOR JUDICIAL REVIEW ORDERS OF CERTIORARI & MANDAMUS AND IN THE MATTER OF SECTIONS 8 & 9 OF THE LAW REFORM ACT, CAP 26 OF THE LAWS OF KENYA AND IN THE MATTER OF ORDER 53 OF THE CIVIL PROCEDURE RULES, 2010 Between Republic Applicant and Odpp, Makindu Law Courts 1st Respondent Dci, Makindu Office 2nd Respondent Chief Magistrates's Court, Makindu Law Courts 3rd Respondent and Joseph Gordon Gatura 1st Intended Interested Party Festus Mulinge Muli 2nd Intended Interested Party Michael Karanja 3rd Intended Interested Party and Purity Ntinyari Mungania Ex parte Applicant Ruling 1.The Application for determination before me is the one dated 06/08/2025 filed pursuant to Orders 1 Rule 10 (2), 51 Rule 15, 53 Rule (4) & (6), Articles 47, 48 & 50 of the Constitution of Kenya, Section 1A, 1B & 3A of the Civil Procedure Act Cap 21 Laws of Kenya and all the enabling provisions of the law seeking;a.Spent.b.That this Honorable Court be pleased to grant leave to the interested parties to be enjoined as substantive parties to the proceedings herein.c.That, upon grant of leave sought under clause (b) above, this honorable court be pleased to grant further leave to the interested parties to file statements of response and incidental documents thereto.d.That, the annexed affidavit sworn by Festus Muli Mulinge, grounds of opposition and incidental documents be deemed as duly filed upon payment of any requisite fees.e.That this honorable court be pleased to vacate the ex-parte orders and stay issued in favor of the ex-parte Applicant on 07/07/2025.f.That this honorable court be pleased to give directions to facilitate fair adjudication of the issues in dispute between the parties herein. 2.The Application is supported by the grounds set out on its face and further amplified by the affidavit of Paul Gichuhi sworn on the same date. He deposed that he is an Advocate of the High Court of Kenya in conduct of Criminal Case No. E917 of 2024, which has precipitated the application herein and where the Interested Parties are the accused persons. 3.That, the Interested Parties were charged with one count of Forgery and Making of a False Document Contrary to Section 347 (d) (i) and Section 349 of the Penal Code on 21/11/2024. That, the arraignment and charges were contrary to a report and findings of a Forensic Document Examiner’s Report dated 05/04/2024 by one James Mutuma attached to the Directorate of Criminal Investigations Department. 4.That, the Interested Parties took plea before the trial court on 21/11/2024 in which they pleaded not guilty and the matter got listed for pre-trial directions on 26/02/2025. That, on the said date, the ex-parte applicant served the prosecution with a letter dated 11/02/2025, imputing professional misconduct against the prosecutor, one David Odhiambo which letter was copied to the ODPP Makueni Region and ODPP Head Office, Nairobi. 5.He deposed that, together with the said letter, the ex-parte applicant produced an email dated 25/02/2025 from an alleged anonymous informer purporting to inform her that she should not attend court because her life was in danger. That, upon consideration of the said documents and hearing arguments by the respective counsel, the trial court over-ruled the complainant’s application and warned the ex-parte applicant to desist from interfering with the roles of the prosecution. 6.That, on 22/05/2025, the matter came up for hearing and the court was informed that the matter could not proceed because the ex-parte applicant had lodged a series of letters of complaints against the Investigating Officers with the Directorate of Criminal Investigations, Nairobi causing the file to be called up to Nairobi and later rerouted to ODPP Makueni. 7.That, on 19/06/2025, the matter came up for mention and the prosecution counsel informed the trial court that the ODPP in charge Makueni and the DCI had reviewed the ex-parte applicant’s complaints and advised the prosecution to proceed and take a hearing date without any amendments to the charges facing the accused. 8.That, on 09/07/2025, the matter came up for hearing and the ex-parte applicant appeared in court and served the prosecution with the Judicial Review application herein which had been filed only two days before on 07/07/2025. That, from the foregoing series of events, there has been repeated obstructions, frustrations and delays in the hearing of the case against the accused, which delay is prejudicial to their fundamentally guaranteed freedoms under the applicable Articles and Statutes. 9.He stated that the matter is now scheduled for mention on a date unknown to the Interested Parties who may end up being condemned unheard in violation of the principles of natural justice and right to a fair hearing. That, the Interested Parties, being the accused in Makindu Criminal Case No. E917 of 2025 have a stake and interest in this matter, distinct and separate from any other party and ought to be enjoined and accorded an opportunity to be heard for the ends of justice to be met. 10.The application was opposed through the ex-parte applicant’s Replying Affidavit sworn on 23/09/2025, in which she deposed that the proposed Interested Parties have not demonstrated any prejudice likely to be suffered if they are not enjoined in the suit. That, their joinder will not in any way whatsoever assist this Honorable Court to settle the intricate/pertinent issues raised by the ex-parte applicant in this suit. That, the application does not demonstrate any independent and distinct claim from the matters already before court. 11.That, the intended Interested Parties are not relevant for the simple reason that their grievances are to be ventilated by the Respondents who have the requisite jurisdiction to investigate and prosecute. That, they have not met the threshold set by the Supreme Court in Francis Karioko Muruatetu & Anor -vs- Republic & 5 Others (2016) eKLR. 12.The Application was canvassed through written submissions. 13.The issues set out for determination were stated as follows;a.Whether the intended Interested Parties have met the legal threshold for joinder.b.Whether the continued stay of the criminal proceedings violates Article 50 (2) (e) of the Constitution.c.Whether the Judicial Review proceedings amount to an abuse of process aimed at obstructing the criminal trial.d.Whether the application is incompetent by reason of the Supporting Affidavit sworn by counsel. 14.As to whether the intended Interested Parties meet the threshold for joinder, reference was made to Order 1 Rule 10(2) of the Civil Procedure Rules (CPR) which allows joinder where a party’s presence is necessary to enable the court to effectively and completely adjudicate upon the issues in dispute. Reliance was placed on the Supreme Court decision in Trusted Society of Human Rights Alliance -vs- Mumo Matemu & 5 Others (2014) eKLR for the submission that an Interested Party is one who will be ‘affected by the decision of the court’. It was contended that denying the applicants a chance to challenge the stay is to condemn them to a state of perpetual legal limbo. 15.Further reliance was placed on the case of Francis Karioko Muruatetu & Anor -vs- R & 5 Others (Supra) for the submission that the guiding principles for joinder are; the existence of a clearly identifiable stake, the likelihood of prejudice if excluded and the value the party brings to the proceedings. 16.It was submitted that the stake of the Intended Interested Parties is direct and identifiable. That, they are accused persons in the criminal case whose prosecution has been stayed. That, their personal liberties, reputations and careers are at stake. That, the prejudice is manifest in that the stay orders were obtained ex-parte and continue to operate without affording the accused persons an opportunity to be heard hence amounts to condemnation without a hearing. 17.That, the Intended Interested Parties bring critical material before court including; (a) a Forensic Document Examiner’s Report by James Mutuma (DCI) dated 05/04/2024 which allegedly exonerates them from the forgery allegations, (b) the full history of the underlying civil and corporate dispute and (c) evidence of a pattern of conduct by the ex-parte applicant aimed at frustrating the criminal justice process. It was contended that if this court makes orders affecting the criminal trial without hearing the accused, it would violate the principle of Audi Alteram Partem and Article 50(1) of the Constitution. 18.As to whether the continued stay of the criminal proceedings violates Article 50(2)(e) of the Constitution, it was submitted that the stay of proceedings in Makindu Criminal Case No. E917 of 2024 has the effect of suspending the trial indefinitely despite the fact that investigations have been completed and the prosecution is ready to proceed. That, this court should be slow to sanction the prolonged stalling of a criminal trial particularly where the accused persons themselves are seeking to have the matter heard and concluded. 19.Reliance was placed on the case of Republic -vs-Director of Public Prosecutions & 2 Others ex-parte Chamanlal Vrajlal Kamani (2015) eKLR for the submission that judicial review should not be used to shield accused persons from trial or to prematurely determine evidentiary matters best left to the trial court. It was submitted that in the present case, it is the complainant who is using judicial review to delay a trial in which the available forensic evidence already favors the accused persons. 20.As to whether the judicial review proceedings amount to abuse of court process aimed at obstructing the criminal trial, it was submitted that evidence on record shows that the ex-parte applicant has previously withdrawn from arbitration and mediation processes whenever it became apparent that the outcome would not be favorable to her. That, the use of judicial review to stall a legitimate criminal process is an abuse of court process. Reliance was placed on the case of R -vs- Kenya Revenue Authority Ex-Parte Yaya Towers Ltd (2008) eKLR for the submission that judicial review should not be used as an alternative to the trial process where the accused can raise their defences. 21.It was submitted that, at least four investigative and Judicial Officers namely Mr. Kennedy Lempate (DCI), Mr. Roba Bashuna, PC Mungai (DCI Makindu) and Wilberforce Odhiambo (Prosecutor Makindu) have allegedly been subjected to complaints of bribery lodged by the ex-parte applicant, complaints which had the effect of stalling or derailing the process. It was contended that judicial review is concerned with the legality of process and not with micro managing investigations or prosecutions. That, where it is invoked to paralyze lawful proceedings through attrition and collateral attacks, it ceases to be a shield and becomes a sword. Reliance was placed on the case of Meixner & Anor -vs- AG (2005) 2 KLR 189 where the court warned against the misuse of constitutional and judicial review remedies to interfere with the prosecutorial mandate of the DPP. 22.It was submitted that the ex-parte applicant has relied heavily on her status as a complainant. That while the victim’s rights are protected under the law, they are not limitless. That, Section 9 of the Victim Protection Act guarantees participation but does not permit a victim to control, dictate or derail prosecutorial decisions or court proceedings. That, the independence of the Director of Public Prosecutions is constitutionally protected under Article 157 of the Constitution. 23.As to whether the application is incompetent by reason of the Supporting Affidavit being sworn by Counsel, it was submitted that the objection is without merit as the Notice of Motion is also supported by a substantive Replying Affidavit sworn by the 2nd Interested Party, Festus Muli Mulinge, who is a direct participant in the facts in issue. That, any perceived defect is therefore curable and Article 159 (2) (d) of the Constitution which obliges the court to administer justice without undue regard to procedural technicalities, particularly where no prejudice has been demonstrated. 24.It was submitted that the intended Interested Parties face real and ongoing professional risk as the pendency of the criminal case exposes them to possible disciplinary action by; the Kenya Medical Practitioners and Dentists Council, the Clinical Officers Council and the Institute of Certified Public Accountants of Kenya. That, the continued suspension of trial without resolution places their careers in jeopardy and causes prejudice that cannot be remedied by damages. 25.The issues for determination were stated to be;a.Whether the Intended Interested Parties have met the legal threshold for joinder.b.Whether a joinder application can be used to seek substantive discharge of ex parte stay orders before joinder is granted.c.Whether the Intended Interested Parties’ proposed participation will assist the Court or merely duplicate the Respondents’ case.d.Whether alleged forensic evidence and professional prejudice evidence are matters for judicial review or the trial court.e.Whether the interim stay violates Article 50(2)(e), or is a lawful preservatory order pending determination of the judicial review. 26.As to whether the Intended Interested Parties have met the legal threshold for joinder, it was submitted that an applicant seeking joinder must demonstrate more than a general interest in the matter. That, the Applicant must show a proximate, identifiable and non-peripheral stake in the proceedings, demonstrate prejudice if excluded and further show that the submissions intended to be made will be useful and non-duplicative. Reliance was placed on the case of Muruatetu (supra) where the Supreme Court stated:“37.From the foregoing legal provisions, and from the case law, the following elements emerge as applicable where a party seeks to be enjoined in proceedings as an interested party:One must move the Court by way of a formal application. Enjoinment is not as of right, but is at the discretion of the Court; hence, sufficient grounds must be laid before the Court, on the basis of the following elements: The personal interest or stake that the party has in the matter must be set out in the application.The interest must be clearly identifiable and must be proximate enough, to stand apart from anything that is merely peripheral. The prejudice to be suffered by the intended interested party in case of non-joinder, must also be demonstrated to the satisfaction of the Court. It must also be clearly outlined and not something remote.Lastly, a party must, in its application, set out the case and/or submissions it intends to make before the Court, and demonstrate the relevance of those submissions. It should also demonstrate that these submissions are not merely a replication of what the other parties will be making before the Court.” 27.It was submitted that the Intended Interested Parties have not satisfied the threshold in that; firstly, their alleged interest is not distinct from the Respondents’ interest. It was contended that the Intended Interested Parties’ submissions that criminal proceedings should proceed and that the stay orders should be discharged is precisely the same position advanced by the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP), the Directorate of Criminal Investigations (DCI) and the trial court. That, the legality of the prosecution, the propriety of the investigative process, and the validity of the impugned criminal proceedings are matters to be defended by the Respondents whose public power is under review. 28.Secondly, it was submitted that the Intended Interested Parties have not demonstrated any prejudice that is direct, specific and incapable of being addressed by the existing parties or by the criminal trial process. That, their alleged prejudice is framed broadly around delay, professional reputation and disciplinary exposure but they have not shown any disciplinary notice, complaint, suspension, regulatory proceedings or concrete legal prejudice arising from the ex-parte stay orders. That, their complaint is therefore speculative and remote. 29.Thirdly, it was opined that the Intended Interested Parties have not shown what unique assistance they will render to this Honourable Court. That, their submissions show that they intend to introduce a Forensic Document Examiner’s Report, the history of an alleged civil and corporate dispute and allegations of obstruction by the ex-parte applicant all of which amounts to tendering evidence before this court instead of the criminal trial court. 30.That, these are factual and evidential matters for the trial court, not for a judicial review court. That Judicial review proceedings are concerned with the legality, fairness, rationality and propriety of public decision-making. That, the Intended Interested Parties are neither the Prosecutors, the investigative authorities nor the trial court. That, they did not make the impugned prosecutorial or investigative decisions and cannot therefore purport to step into the shoes of the Respondents. That, they have confused being affected by the outcome with being necessary for the determination of the judicial review proceedings. That, the mere fact that a party may be affected by the ultimate result does not automatically entitle that party to joinder. 31.As to whether a joinder application can be used to seek substantive discharge of ex parte stay orders before joinder is granted, it was submitted that the application is procedurally defective and premature to the extent that it seeks substantive orders discharging, reviewing or vacating the ex parte stay orders before joinder is granted. That, a party who has not yet been admitted into proceedings cannot, through the same joinder application invite the Court to determine substantive rights and discharge existing preservatory orders. That, the threshold question is whether such party should be admitted at all and until that threshold is crossed, the Intended Interested Parties have no standing to seek substantive adverse orders against the ex-parte applicant. Reliance was placed on the case of Kathendu Kareri & Another -vs- Ita Kiborio & Another [2021] KEELC 806 where the court stated;“The third issue (issue 3) is whether stay of implementation of judgement should be granted. Having taken the position that the applicant cannot be allowed to join the suit, and having further found that review and setting aside are not justifiable in the circumstances of this case, it is clear that the applicant remains a stranger. Stay of implementation of the judgement can only be considered in his favour or otherwise if his joinder has been accepted. A stranger cannot be allowed to seek stay of implementation of a judgment in a case he is not a party to. Stay of implementation cannot therefore be granted and is hereby declined.” 32.It was contended that the application is a procedural trojan horse. That, it seeks entry into the proceedings while simultaneously seeking to destroy the substratum of the judicial review application. 33.As to whether the Intended Interested Parties’ proposed participation will assist the Court, it was submitted that the central question in these proceedings is whether the Respondents exercised public power lawfully, fairly, rationally and within constitutional limits. That the Respondents are the parties best placed to answer that question. 34.It was submitted that, although Article 157 of the Constitution grants the ODPP prosecutorial independence, that independence is subject to constitutional discipline, including public interest, administration of justice and prevention of abuse of legal process. That, the DCI is the investigative agency whose conduct is under review and the trial court is the subordinate court whose proceedings have been stayed pending the determination of the legality of the process. 35.Learned counsel submitted that the matters which the Intended Interested Parties wish to argue to wit, the prosecution should proceed, the forensic evidence favors them and that the stay should be lifted either fall within the Respondents’ defence of the prosecution or within the accused persons’ defence before the trial court. 36.It was contended that in the Muruatetu Case, the Supreme Court made clear that an Intended Interested Party must show that its proposed submissions are not merely a replication of the submissions by existing parties. It was further contended that the Intended Interested Parties will not assist the Court and will merely multiply parties, broaden the factual contest to include collateral disputes, evidential defenses all of which risk contaminating the sanctity of judicial review proceedings. 37.As to whether the alleged forensic evidence and professional prejudice evidence are matters for judicial review or the trial court, it was submitted that these issues are not proper matters for determination in a joinder application or in judicial review proceedings. That, the alleged forensic report is a matter of evidence and if it is exculpatory, the proper forum for its evaluation is the criminal trial court. That, it may also be placed before the ODPP in the exercise of prosecutorial review but it is not and cannot be a basis for joinder in judicial review proceedings. 38.It was submitted that judicial review is concerned with the decision-making process and not the merits or demerits of the decision. That, the Intended Interested Parties seek to introduce new issues and evidentiary material in these proceedings yet such conduct was frowned upon by the Supreme Court in the Muruatetu Case at paragraphs 41 and 42 where it held that;“Having carefully considered all arguments, we are of the opinion that any party seeking to join proceedings in any capacity, must come to terms with the fact that the overriding interest or stake in any matter is that of the primary/principal parties’ before the Court. The determination of any matter will always have a direct effect on the primary/principal parties. Third parties admitted as interested parties may only be remotely or indirectly affected, but the primary impact is on the parties that first moved the Court. This is true, more so, in proceedings that were not commenced as Public Interest Litigation (PIL), like the proceedings now before us. Therefore, in every case, whether some parties are enjoined as interested parties or not, the issues to be determined by the Court will always remain the issues as presented by the principal parties, or as framed by the Court from the pleadings and submissions of the principal parties. An interested party may not frame its own fresh issues, or introduce new issues for determination by the Court. One of the principles for admission of an interested party is that such a party must demonstrate that he/she has a stake in the matter before the Court. That stake cannot take the form of an altogether a new issue to be introduced before the Court.” 39.As to whether the interim stay violates Article 50(2)(e) or is a lawful preservatory order pending determination of the judicial review, it was submitted that Article 50(2)(e) should not be used as a shield for a flawed administrative process. That, the Article does not prohibit lawful, judicially supervised interim stay granted by a court for the purpose of preserving the substratum of judicial proceedings before it. That, a temporary stay pending determination of judicial review is not equivalent to unconstitutional delay but is a lawful interim measure issued by a competent court in the exercise of supervisory jurisdiction. 40.It was contended that the stay herein was granted by this Honourable Court at the leave stage and its purpose was preservatory. That, it was meant to ensure that the judicial review proceedings are not rendered nugatory before the Court determines the legality, fairness and propriety of the impugned process. That, the Intended Interested Parties have not shown that the stay is indefinite, oppressive or unreasonable and have only shown that they desire the criminal trial to proceed. It was contended that a desire is neither a statutory nor a constitutional right. That, Article 24 of the Constitution allows the limitation of rights and fundamental rights where such limitation is lawfully reasonable and justifiable. 41.In conclusion, it was submitted that the affidavit sworn by counsel should be struck out or disregarded to the extent that it contains contentious factual depositions. 42.Having looked at the application, response and the rival submissions, it is my considered view that the only issue for determination is whether the threshold for joinder has been demonstrated. 43.The locus classicus case on the issue of joinder of Interested Parties is Muruatetu (2016) (supra) where the factors to be considered by courts in determining such applications were distilled to be;a.An identifiable and proximate interest,b.Prejudice to be suffered if not joined,c.Submissions intended to be made before the court and their relevance,d.Demonstration that the submissions intended to be made are not a replication of what the other parties will be making before court. 44.The factors to be considered were similarly echoed in the case of Raila Odinga & Another -vs- I.E.B.C & Others & Michael Wainaina Mwaura [2017] eKLR where the Supreme Court held;“Lastly, a party must, in its application, set out the case and/or submissions it intends to make before the court, and demonstrate the relevance of those submissions. It should also demonstrate that these submissions are not merely a replication of what the other parties will be making before court.” 45.In the substantive judicial review application herein, it is stated that the Intended Interested Parties herein were co-directors and co-workers of the ex-parte applicant in Makindu Medical Centre (the company). That, sometime in December 2023 and January 2024, the Intended Interested Parties orchestrated a scheme in which they forged the ex-parte applicant’s signatures on several company documents and used the forged documents to transfer all her shares to the 1st Intended Interested Party (Joseph Gordon Gatura). That, they also expunged the ex-parte applicant from the directorship of the company, opened a bank account and transacted for and on behalf of the company numerously without her knowledge. 46.The ex-parte applicant is therefore the complainant in Makindu CM’s Criminal Case No. E917 of 2024 (the criminal case) where the Intended Interested Parties were charged with the aforesaid criminal charges. 47.In the instant case, the ex-parte applicant is accusing the 2nd Respondent (DCI) and 1st Respondent (DPP) of bungling the investigations and prosecution, respectively, of the criminal case in a way that does not promote public confidence in the integrity of the relevant public offices. That the actions of the DPP and DCI do not serve the cause of justice and will unfairly and crudely disenfranchise her. Consequently, the ex-parte applicant is seeking;a.An order of certiorari to remove and bring into this court for purposes of quashing, the DPP’s decision certifying the criminal case as ready for hearing until further investigations are conducted and the charge sheet is amended accordingly.b.An order of mandamus to compel the DPP to present and submit the prosecution file for the criminal case to the DPP’s Head-quarters for further investigations and reallocation.c.An order of mandamus to compel the DCI to present and submit the police file for the criminal case to the Regional Criminal Investigations Officer (Eastern Region) for further investigations.d.An order of mandamus to compel the trial court (3rd Respondent) to present and submit the court file for the criminal case to the Presiding Judge-Makueni High Court for supervision and directions. 48.It is against this background that the Intended Interested Parties have applied to be joined in the judicial review proceedings herein. 49.As to whether they have an identifiable and proximate interest, it is quite obvious that they are the accused persons in the criminal case which has been stayed by the orders issued in the proceedings herein. To that extent they have an identifiable stake. 50.As to whether the Intended Interested Parties will suffer prejudice if not joined, their argument is that denying them an opportunity to challenge the stay orders which were obtained ex-parte is tantamount to condemning them to a state of perpetual legal limbo and that their personal liberties, reputations and careers are at stake. 51.The ex-parte applicant is challenging the sufficiency of investigations by DCI, the manner in which the charge sheets have been drafted and prosecution is being conducted. For instance, it is her argument that the charges have been drafted broadly contrary to the specific evidence which she supplied as the complainant and that the nature of evidence availed calls for inclusion of more charges which the DPP and DCI have refused to do. I have looked at the exhibited charge sheet vis-à-vis the seven documents which the ex-parte applicant alleges were forged and it is quite evident on the face of it that the charge sheet has only made reference to one document namely; ‘share of stock document’. 52.In my view, the stay orders issued herein are justified in order to preserve the substratum of the proceedings herein otherwise it will be an academic exercise if the criminal case is allowed to proceed and, at the conclusion of the proceedings herein, the court finds that indeed there was a lapse in the decision-making process of the DPP and DCI. The stay orders were issued by this court on 07/07/2025 hence not too long ago and considering the multiple mandates of this court and the court diary, I am of the view that the complaint about violation of the right to fair hearing is premature. 53.Further, the Intended Interested Parties have not been convicted in the criminal case hence hard to conclude that their personal liberties, reputations and careers are at stake. In any case, they are entitled to the constitutional right of presumption of innocence until found guilty. Consequently, it is my considered view that the Intended Interested Parties will not suffer any prejudice if they are not joined in these proceedings. 54.With regard to the submissions which they intend to make before this court, the Intended Interested Parties indicated that they intend to present;(a)a forensic document examiner’s report by James Mutuma (DCI) dated 05/04/2024 which allegedly exonerates them from the forgery allegations,(b)the full history of the underlying civil and corporate dispute and(c)evidence of a pattern of conduct by the ex-parte applicant aimed at frustrating the criminal justice process. 55.With due respect, I am unable to see how the stated document and history will assist this court in interrogating the decision-making processes by the DPP and DCI. The report by the Forensic Document Examiner will be useful in the trial court, if at all the Intended Interested Parties are put on their defence, but not in this court which is concerned with the process and proprietary nature of the impugned decision. Indeed, I am inclined to agree with the ex-parte Applicant that; the Intended Interested Parties are neither the prosecutors nor the investigative authorities and they did not make the impugned prosecutorial or investigative decisions hence cannot purport to step into the shoes of the DPP and DCI. In the persuasive case of Republic -vs- Chesang (Ms) Resident Magistrate & 2 others ex-parte Paul Karanja Kamunge t/a Davisco Agencies & 2 others [2017] eKLR the court (Odunga J) highlighted the considerations for judicial review as follows;“26.Judicial review is a constitutional supervision of public authorities involving a challenge to the legal and procedural validity of the decision. It does not allow the court of review to examine the evidence with a view of forming its own view about the substantial merits of the case. It may be that the tribunal whose decision is being challenged has done something which it had no lawful authority to do. It may have abused or misused the authority which it had. It may have departed from procedures which either by statute or at common law as a matter of fairness it ought to have observed. As regards the decision itself it may be found to be perverse, or irrational, or grossly disproportionate to what was required. Or the decision may be found to be erroneous in respect of a legal deficiency, as for example, through the absence of evidence, or through a failure for any reason to take into account a relevant matter, or through taking into account an irrelevant matter, or through some misconstruction of the terms of the statutory provision which the decision maker is required to apply. While the evidence may have to be explored in order to see if the decision is vitiated by such legal deficiencies, it is perfectly clear that in a case of review, as distinct from an ordinary appeal, the court may not set about forming its own preferred view of the evidence.” 56.Further, the stated submissions by the Intended Interested Parties are available to the Respondents as it is for the Respondents to demonstrate that they are not guilty of what they have been accused of in these proceedings. The Respondents will basically be demonstrating why the criminal proceedings in the trial court should proceed and why the stay orders herein should be discharged. These are the same reliefs which the Intended Interested Parties are seeking to advance hence they have not demonstrated that their interest is distinct from that of the Respondents. 57.By parity of reasoning, if the interest of the Intended Interested Parties is not distinct from that of the Respondents, the irresistible conclusion is that the materials/submissions they intend to make before this court will be a duplication of the materials to be presented by the Respondents. This will have an effect of prolonging and convoluting the proceedings unnecessarily hence no value addition. 58.The upshot is that, the intended Interested Parties have not demonstrated the threshold for joinder. 59.With regard to the prayer to vacate the ex-parte orders and stay issued in favor of the ex-parte applicant on 07/07/2025, the same will not be tenable if the application for joinder is declined. It is also in the interests of justice that they remain in force until further orders are made at the appropriate time. Accordingly, the application herein is dismissed for lack of merit. DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED VIRTUALLY THIS 26TH DAY JUNE 2026........................................J.N.ONYIEGOJUDGE