[2023] KEHC 21821 (KLR)

[2023] KEHC 21821 (KLR)

The court found that while the Directorate of Criminal Investigations and other respondents are lawfully empowered to investigate suspected criminal conduct, such investigations must be conducted in accordance with the law and must not involve harassment or intimidation of the petitioner or its agents. The court...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2023] KEHC 21821 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: SBL Innovate Manufacturers Limited; Respondent: Directorate Of Criminal Investigations; Respondent: The Honourable The Attorney General; Respondent: Inspector General, National Police Service
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Naivasha
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Constitutional Petition E001 of 2023
Procedural Posture
Constitutional Petition / Ruling on Interlocutory Application for Interim Orders Pending Hearing of Petition
Outcome
Interim orders granted restraining respondents from interfering with petitioner's operations pending hearing and determination of the petition or conclusion of investigations.
Judges
GL Nzioka
Legal Topics
Fair Administrative Action, Police Powers and Limits, Investigative Procedure, Presumption of Innocence
Source Language
en
Constitutional Law Administrative Law Fair Administrative Action Police Powers and Limits Investigative Procedure Presumption of Innocence

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

SBL Innovate Manufacturers Limited

Applicant

Directorate Of Criminal Investigations

Respondent

The Honourable The Attorney General

Respondent

Inspector General, National Police Service

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Constitutional Petition / Ruling on Interlocutory Application for Interim Orders Pending Hearing of Petition

  1. 1 Whether the Directorate of Criminal Investigations (DCI) exceeded its statutory mandate by interfering with the petitioner's business operations and harassing its staff.
  2. 2 Whether the actions of the respondents violated the petitioner's right to fair administrative action under Article 47 of the Constitution.
  3. 3 Whether interim orders restraining the respondents from interfering with the petitioner's operations should be granted pending determination of the petition.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that while the Directorate of Criminal Investigations and other respondents are lawfully empowered to investigate suspected criminal conduct, such investigations must be conducted in accordance with the law and must not involve harassment or intimidation of the petitioner or its agents. The court noted inconsistencies in the parties' affidavits regarding the respondents' actions but emphasized that the substratum of the petition concerns the legality and manner of the investigations. The court further observed that the respondents only forwarded the seized samples for analysis after the petitioner moved to court, suggesting a lack of good faith. Given the absence of...

Court Disposition

Interim orders granted restraining respondents from interfering with petitioner's operations pending hearing and determination of the petition or conclusion of investigations.

Orders

  • Respondents are restrained from interfering with the petitioner's operations in any way until the petition is heard and determined and/or results of investigation are received and lawful action taken.
  • Petitioner to file and serve submissions within fourteen (14) days of the date of the order.