https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/10606

Muyera v Attorney General & 6 others (Judicial Review E253 of 2026) [2026] KEHC 10606 (KLR) (Judicial Review) (17 July 2026) (Ruling) Neutral citation: [2026] KEHC 10606 (KLR) Republic of Kenya In the High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts) Judicial Review Judicial Review E253 of 2026 NM Orina, J July 17, 2026 Between Teresia Shitoti Muyera Applicant and The Honourable Attorney General 1st Respondent The Inspector General of Police 2nd Respondent The Directorate of Criminal Investigations 3rd Respondent The Nairobi Regional Police Commander 4th Respondent DCIO, Embakasi Police Station 5th Respondent OCS, Kayole Police Station 6th Respondent Susan Wanjiru 7th Respondent Ruling 1.I have considered the certificate of urgency, the ex parte chamber summons, the statutory statement and the verifying affidavit, all dated 15 July 2026, together with the annexture. The Applicant seeks leave to commence judicial review proceedings against the named entities on the basis of their administrative actions and decisions to pursue criminal proceedings against her on the basis of a purely commercial transaction arising from a soft loan. The Applicant avers that the Respondents are acting in abuse of police powers. The Applicant, therefore, seeks the refuge of this court to prevent such abuses and to prevent any intimidation, arrest, arraignment or prosecution in respect of the said loan. 2.Grant of leave to commence judicial review proceedings is a discretionary power of this court. The same is guided by Order 53 rule 1 of the Civil procedure Rules. In my considered view and considering the developments in this area of law with the enactment of the Constitution of Kenya 2010 and the Fair Administrative Actions Act, there is a move towards opening pathways for access to justice. A court faced with an application for leave under the Order 53 procedure is, therefore, reminded that the balance should tilt towards grant of leave in order to allow an applicant a chance to ventilate their claim. Order 53 rule 1 should only be seen as only a filter for hopeless cases rather than a gatekeeping mechanism. This position is reinforced by the Constitution but has been recognised by this Court over time when faced with an application for leave. As explained by Waki J. (as he then was), in Republic vs. County Council of Kwale & Another Ex Parte Kondo & 57 Others, Mombasa HCMCA No. 384 of 1996, this filter is to ensure that an applicant is only allowed to proceed to substantive hearing if the Court is satisfied that there is a case fit for further consideration. 3.The application before me does not contain any documents in support of the averments in the statutory statement. There is no evidence of the summons by the police or any decision to commence criminal proceedings against the Applicant. This court would be acting on the basis of no evidence of the alleged abuse of powers by the police and unnecessarily drag the state agencies sued to this court without any basis having been established. Consequently, this court is not satisfied that the Applicant has established basis for grant of leave to apply for judicial review. This application is disallowed. DATED AND DELIVERED THIS 17TH DAY OF JULY 2026NABIL M. ORINAJUDGE