[2018] KEHC 10268 (KLR)

[2018] KEHC 10268 (KLR)

The court found no evidence that the Director of Public Prosecutions' recommendation to charge the petitioner was informed by discriminatory considerations or constituted an infringement of his constitutional rights. The petitioner's claim that he was being harassed for performing his duty was deemed a matter for...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2018] KEHC 10268 (KLR)
Parties
Petitioner: Siyad Hassan Edo; Respondent: Director of Public Prosecutions; Respondent: Hon. Attorney General; Respondent: Directorate of Criminal Investigations Department
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Homa Bay
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Petition 16 of 2017
Procedural Posture
Constitutional Petition / Ruling
Outcome
petition dismissed for want of merit
Judges
DO Ohungo
Legal Topics
Fair Administrative Action, Right to Fair Trial, Abuse of Process, Discrimination, Prosecutorial Discretion
Source Language
en
Constitutional Law Criminal Law Fair Administrative Action Right to Fair Trial Abuse of Process Discrimination Prosecutorial Discretion

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 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Siyad Hassan Edo

Petitioner

Director of Public Prosecutions

Respondent

Hon. Attorney General

Respondent

Directorate of Criminal Investigations Department

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Constitutional Petition / Ruling

  1. 1 Whether the order to arrest and charge the petitioner infringed his constitutional rights.
  2. 2 Whether the DPP's recommendation to charge the petitioner was informed by discriminatory considerations.
  3. 3 Whether the petition was filed in bad faith and constituted an abuse of court process.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found no evidence that the Director of Public Prosecutions' recommendation to charge the petitioner was informed by discriminatory considerations or constituted an infringement of his constitutional rights. The petitioner's claim that he was being harassed for performing his duty was deemed a matter for the criminal trial, where such defenses could be raised. The court further noted that the choice to file the petition in Homa Bay, far from the locus of the events in Mandera, suggested bad faith and an abuse of the court process. Consequently, the petition was dismissed for want of merit.

Court Disposition

petition dismissed for want of merit

Orders

  • The petition is dismissed for want of merit.