Chabeda v ODPP & 4 others (Miscellaneous Application E383 of 2023) [2025] KEHC 6181 (KLR) (Crim) (27 March 2025) (Ruling)
Neutral citation:
[2025] KEHC 6181 (KLR)
Republic of Kenya
Miscellaneous Application E383 of 2023
AB Mwamuye, J
March 27, 2025
Between
Peter Sagwa Chabeda
Applicant
and
The ODPP
1st Respondent
Milimani Criminal Chief Magistrate’S Court
2nd Respondent
Inspector General of Police
3rd Respondent
Directorate of Criminal Investigations
4th Respondent
Attorney General
5th Respondent
Ruling
1.The Application before me was brought through a Notice of motion dated 5th October, 2022 filed under certificate of urgency. It is a miscellaneous application stated to be brought under Articles 10, 22, 49, 50 (G) and 159 of the Constitution of Kenya 2010 and all enabling provisions of the law. The Applicant seeks the following orders:i.Spentii.That there be a stay of proceedings in Milimani Criminal Case No 1783 of 2019 pending the hearing and determination of the current Application.iii.Costs of the Applicationiv.Such other orders that meet the ends of justice.
2.The Application is anchored on the grounds on its face and further supported with the annexed affidavit of Applicant, Peter Sagwa Chabeda sworn on 5th October 2023. It is averred that Applicant has been put on his defence in Criminal Case No 1783 of 2019 despite several procedural discrepancies. That the Applicant was never cautioned by the Investigating officer before his statement was taken.
3.The Applicant states that he was arrested on 18th October 2019 and arraigned in Court on the 22nd October, 2019. The Applicant’s new advocate was denied the right to have the criminal case adjourned to enable him prepare for the defence of the Applicant.
4.The Applicant avers that the discrepancies by the trial court and the prosecution amount to the infringement of the Applicant’s constitutional rights and that the criminal complaint which is the subject matter of the criminal case is due to a commercial contract that did not work out and in any event it is a complaint that is strictly of a civil nature.
5.The application is opposed by the Respondents’ Grounds of Opposition dated 10th July, 2024. The pith of those objections is that the application is misconceived and an abuse of the court process. That there’s no bar to criminal proceedings where there’s an offence disclosed.
6.The application was canvassed by way of written submissions by counsels for the Applicant and the Respondents.
7.I have considered the application and the Respondents’ Grounds of Opposition and the the rival submissions by the respective advocates for the parties. The main issue is whether this Honourable Court has sufficiently been persuaded to issue the orders sought.
8.It is clear from the pleadings that what the Applicant herein is seeking is conservatory orders geared towards restraining the 1st to 4th Respondents from arresting, harassing or otherwise interfering with the Applicant.
9.The meaning and purpose of a conservatory order was stated in the case of Invesco Assurance Co. v MW (Minor Suing thro’ next friend and mother (HW) [2016] eKLR to be as follows:
10.The principles to be taken into account in deciding whether an Applicant is deserving of a conservatory order were summarized in Wilson Kaberia Nkunja v Magistrates and Judges Vetting Board & another [2016] eKLR as follows:
11.The first test is whether the Applicant has established a prima facie case with a likelihood of success. The Applicant’s contention is that she has received several calls from officers claiming to be attached to the 2nd Respondent and that she was summoned to appear before the Directorate of Criminal Investigations of which she did. That she is apprehensive that she will be arrested by the Respondents without any divulgence of reasons why.
12.The 5th Respondent stated that the Applicant was summoned by the Directorate of Criminal Investigations on 14th December, 2023 but failed to honour the summons and instead alleged that the 5th Respondent was intimidating and threatening her and sending people to issue death threats. This necessitated the 5th respondent to make another report on the 19th December, 2023 to the Nairobi Regional Criminal Investigation Office who opened a file No CR E611/2024 and commenced investigations into the matter.
13.Section 52 of the National Police Service Act empowers the police to summon anybody to assist in investigations. It is clear that the 2nd & 3rd Respondents acted upon a report that was made by the 5th respondent.
14.It is to be noted that it is not a violation of one`s right for a police officer to summon or arrest a person where there is lawful cause to do so. In Alfred N. Mutua v Ethics & Anti-Corruption Commission (EACC) & 4 others [2016] eKLR the court held that;
15.The Applicant herein has not established that the summons were issued out of malice as she alleged. The 2nd & 3rd Respondents were therefore right to summon the Applicant in view of the fact that a complaint had been lodged against her.
16.Furthermore, under Article 157 (10) of the Constitution, the DPP “shall not require the consent of any person or authority for the commencement of criminal proceedings and in the exercise of his or her powers or functions, shall not be under the direction or control of any person or authority”.
17.The only caveat is that he must have regard to the public interest, the interests of the administration of justice and the need to prevent and avoid abuse of the legal process. I am not persuaded from the materials before me that the DPP has fallen into that exception.
18.From the pleadings placed before the court, the Applicant has not established that he has a prima facie case with a likelihood of success and neither has she shown that there is imminent danger of arrest. In my view the submission that the rights of the Applicant will be violated through employment of a procedure that she has not yet even been subject to is indeed merely speculative and premature.
19.It is clear to me that if this Court were to grant the conservatory orders sought by the Applicant, the Court would be imposing a restriction on the constitutional powers of the independent offices to investigate, arrest, and prosecute. It is in the public interest that those who have committed crimes be taken through the due process of the law. The Petitioner has not established that it is in the public interest that the orders sought be issued. Neither has he shown that if the orders are not issued, the suit will be rendered nugatory.
20.The power to issue conservatory orders at interim stage can only be exercised in clear cases backed with evidence. It follows therefore that this court can only intervene if there are cogent allegations of violation of constitutional rights; or threat to violation of the rights; or in clear circumstances where it is evident that the accused will not be afforded a fair trial; or where the prosecution is commenced without a factual basis. The allegations cited by the Applicant does not meet and surpass this threshold.
21.Consequently, I find that the Applicant has failed to satisfy the tests for granting the conservatory orders sought. The upshot is that the Applicant’s application dated 6th February, 2024 is unmerited and the same is dismissed with no orders as to costs.
DATED, SIGNED, AND DELIVERED VIRTUALLY THIS 27TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025.…………………………………………………………………………..BAHATI MWAMUYEJUDGE