Geoffrey K. Sang v Director of Public Prosecutions & 4 others [2020] eKLR Case Summary

Court
High Court of Kenya at Machakos
Category
Civil
Judge(s)
Odunga, J.
Judgment Date
October 22, 2020
Country
Kenya
Document Type
PDF
Number of Pages
3
Explore the case summary of Geoffrey K. Sang v Director of Public Prosecutions & 4 others [2020] eKLR. Delve into key legal insights and implications from this notable judgment.

Case Brief: Geoffrey K. Sang v Director of Public Prosecutions & 4 others [2020] eKLR

1. Case Information:
- Name of the Case: Eng. Geoffrey K. Sang v. The Director of Public Prosecutions & Others
- Case Number: Petition No. 19 of 2020
- Court: High Court of Kenya at Machakos
- Date Delivered: 22nd October 2020
- Category of Law: Civil
- Judge(s): Odunga, J.
- Country: Kenya

2. Questions Presented:
The court was tasked with resolving several legal issues, including:
1. Whether the Director of Criminal Investigations (2nd Respondent) had the authority to initiate criminal proceedings against the Petitioner without the consent of the Director of Public Prosecutions (1st Respondent).
2. Whether the removal of the Petitioner from his position was lawful and whether it was influenced by the alleged criminal proceedings.
3. Whether the actions taken by the 4th and 5th Respondents regarding the Petitioner’s employment were lawful and justified.

3. Facts of the Case:
The Petitioner, Eng. Geoffrey K. Sang, was the Acting Chief Executive Officer of the National Water Harvesting and Storage Authority. He alleged that the 2nd Respondent attempted to initiate criminal charges against him without the requisite consent from the 1st Respondent, thus violating his constitutional rights. The Petitioner claimed that this action was part of a malicious scheme orchestrated by the 4th and 5th Respondents to remove him from office. The case arose from a series of events leading to a purported unlawful removal and adverse publicity affecting the Petitioner’s right to a fair trial.

4. Procedural History:
The case progressed through the High Court, where the Petitioner sought declarations regarding the unlawful nature of the actions taken against him. On 16th July 2020, the court ruled that the 2nd Respondent could not initiate criminal proceedings without the 1st Respondent's consent. Following this ruling, the Petitioner filed a Notice of Motion seeking a review of the judgment based on new evidence that he claimed was not available at the time of the original judgment.

5. Analysis:
Rules:
The court considered multiple provisions of the Kenyan Constitution, including Articles relating to fundamental rights and freedoms, as well as relevant statutory frameworks such as the Employment Act, the Office of Director of Public Prosecutions Act, and the National Police Service Act.

Case Law:
The court referenced previous cases, including *Pancras T. Swai v. Kenya Breweries Limited* [2014] eKLR, which addressed the criteria for reviewing judgments based on new evidence. The court also cited *Republic vs. Registrar of Societies - Kenya & Others Ex-Parte Moses Kirima & Others* [2017] eKLR to emphasize the importance of avoiding multiplicity of suits and the need for judicial efficiency.

Application:
The court applied the rules and case law to the facts presented. It reiterated that the 2nd Respondent lacked the authority to initiate criminal proceedings against the Petitioner without the 1st Respondent's consent. Furthermore, it found insufficient grounds to bar the 2nd Respondent from conducting investigations against the Petitioner. The court concluded that the issues regarding the Petitioner’s employment should be addressed within the Employment and Labour Relations Court, rather than the High Court.

6. Conclusion:
The court ultimately ruled in favor of the Petitioner regarding the illegality of the 2nd Respondent's actions but declined to grant the review application based on new evidence. The court emphasized the need to respect the jurisdiction of the Employment and Labour Relations Court for employment-related disputes. The ruling underscored the importance of lawful procedures in criminal investigations and the protection of constitutional rights.

7. Dissent:
There were no dissenting opinions noted in the ruling.

8. Summary:
The High Court of Kenya ruled that the Director of Criminal Investigations could not initiate criminal proceedings against the Petitioner without consent from the Director of Public Prosecutions, rendering such attempts unconstitutional. The court dismissed the Petitioner’s application for review, stating that the issues surrounding his employment should be resolved in the Employment and Labour Relations Court. This case highlights the balance between law enforcement authority and the protection of individual rights within the Kenyan legal framework.

Document Summary

Below is the summary preview of this document.

  • Geoffrey-K-Sang-v-Director-of-Public-Prosecutions--4-others-[2020]-eKLR-Case-Summary_2229_0.jpg

This is the end of the summary preview.

Related Documents

View all summaries