Patrick Ntharia Mwengesa & 3 others v Milimani Chief Magistrates Court & 3 others [2015] eKLR

Key Facts

Issues

• The first issue for determination is whether the actions and decisions made by the respondents, including the police, Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP), and subordinate courts, are consistent with the Constitution of Kenya and the laws of the land. The petitioners argued that these actions lacked lawful basis and violated constitutional mandates, but the court emphasized that the DPP's prosecution powers are independent and not subject to external control under Article 157(10) of the Constitution.
• The third issue addresses the petitioners' entitlement to the reliefs sought, including orders to quash charges (certiorari), prohibit future prosecutions (prohibition), and restrain ongoing proceedings (injunction), as well as damages. The court dismissed these prayers, stating the respondents acted within their jurisdiction, and such remedies are only available if decisions were made without jurisdiction or in breach of natural justice. Costs were also ordered to be borne by each party.
• The second issue examines if the respondents violated the petitioners' constitutional rights, including the right to fair hearing (Article 50), fair administrative action (Article 47), equality and non-discrimination (Article 27), human dignity (Article 28), property (Article 40), and freedom and security of the person (Article 29). The court found no evidence of such violations, noting that the trial courts are best positioned to determine the validity of charges and that the DPP acted within constitutional authority.

Holdings

• The court dismissed claims of discrimination under Article 27, noting no evidence that the petitioners were arbitrarily targeted. It held that the respondents’ actions were not discriminatory and that the petitioners did not prove specific targeting or unequal treatment.
• The court concluded that the right to property under Article 40 was not violated. It ruled that bail payments in criminal proceedings do not infringe property rights and dismissed concerns about vehicle impoundment as speculative, given no concrete evidence was presented.
• The court found no breach of the right to fair administrative action under Article 47, as the DPP’s prosecution decision was within his mandate. It emphasized that administrative action cannot be challenged unless there is evidence of procedural unfairness or bad faith, which the petitioners did not demonstrate.
• The court dismissed the petition, finding no constitutional violations by the respondents. It held that the actions of the respondents (arrest, prosecution, and trial) were consistent with their constitutional and legal mandates, and that the petitioners failed to demonstrate any infringement of their rights under Articles 27, 28, 29, 40, 47, or 50 of the Constitution. The court emphasized that trial courts are best positioned to determine the validity of charges and that the High Court should not usurp their functions.
• The court denied the petitioners’ prayers for certiorari, prohibition, and injunction, stating these remedies are unavailable where respondents acted within their jurisdiction. It emphasized that such orders require proof of excess of authority or breach of natural justice, which the petitioners failed to establish.
• The court ruled that the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) acted within his constitutional authority under Article 157(11) by prosecuting the petitioners. It clarified that the DPP’s decision to prosecute is independent and not subject to judicial review unless there is evidence of malice, arbitrariness, or abuse of process, which the petitioners failed to provide.
• The court determined that the right to a fair hearing under Article 50(1) and (2) was not violated, as the trial courts are competent to adjudicate the charges. It rejected the claim that the trial courts lacked independence or would fail to provide a fair hearing, stating such allegations were unsubstantiated.

Remedies

• The court directed that each party bear their own costs in the case. The judge considered the nature of the petition and the unresolved issues at the trial courts, deeming it unfair to impose costs on either party. This decision aligns with the court's dismissal of the petition without granting any of the requested reliefs.
• The High Court dismissed the petition filed by Patrick Ntharia Mwengesa and three others against Milimani Chief Magistrates Court and other respondents. The court ruled that the petitioners failed to establish a constitutional violation and that the trial courts should handle the charges. The petition was found not to meet the criteria for improper prosecution as outlined in previous cases. The court emphasized that it would be a subversion of the law if it usurped the trial court's functions.

Legal Principles

• The principle of the rule of law was central, with the court emphasizing that the DPP must act within constitutional mandates (Article 157) and in the public interest, as established in cases like Douglas Maina Mwangi. The judgment reinforced that legal processes must not be abused, and that the DPP's independence is safeguarded unless there is clear evidence of malice or arbitrariness, which the petitioners failed to demonstrate.
• The court applied the principle of judicial review, emphasizing that the High Court cannot interfere with the DPP's prosecution decisions or the trial courts' jurisdiction to determine charges. It held that the DPP's actions under Article 157(10) and (11) of the Constitution are independent and not subject to arbitrary review, and that trial courts are the appropriate forums to assess the validity of charges. This was demonstrated through references to cases like Meixner & Anor vs AG and the constitutional framework governing prosecutorial independence.

Precedent Name

• Macharia & Anor vs Republic
• Banskatha District Fire Association vs D.M. Banskatha
• Meixner & Anor vs AG
• Douglas Maina Mwangi & Anor
• Justus Mwenda Kathenge vs DPP & 2 Others
• Elory Kranuel vs the A.G

Cited Statute

• Insurance (Motor Vehicle Third Party Risks) Act, Cap.405 of the Laws of Kenya
• Traffic Act, Cap.403 Laws of Kenya

Judge Name

Passage Text

• 'If and in the event a decision is made to charge the applicant with an offence and whether the charge can be sustained as a matter of law and fact is for the trial Court to decide'
• This matter is at an end and having found as above, let the Petitioners ventilate and canvass all their grievances at the Subordinate Courts.
• In his submissions, Mr. Mureithi argued that the DPP was under an obligation to 'first establish that an offence has actually been committed before instituting and undertaking any criminal proceeding' and that by not doing so, he had abdicated his duty to comply with Article 157(11) thereby bringing the 'administration of Justice into disrepute and has, rather than avoid abuse of legal process, created an avenue to abuse the same'