1. Before this Court is the Applicant’s Notice of Motion dated 27 July 2026 brought pursuant to rules 14, 3 and 4 of the Fair Administrative Action Rules. The Applicant seeks the suspension of the enforcement of summons contained in the 1 st Respondent’s letter dated 22 July 2026 and any other summons issued under BIFU IF No. 479 of 2024. The Applicant has listed several grounds upon which the application is based, among others, that during the pendency of the substantive proceedings in this matter, the 1 st Respondent has issued fresh summons to the Applicant’s managing Director to record a statement on 4 August; that refusal to honour the said summons amounts to an offence under section 90(2) of the national Police Service Act; that there is apprehension that the Applicant’s senior officers might be arrested for refusal to honor the summons; that the 1 st Respondent is aware that all summons issued in respect to BIFU IF No. 479 of 2024 have been impugned but nevertheless the 1 st Respondent has issued further summons for attendance while the suit is yet to be determined; and that it is unfair and unjust for the Applicant to be called upon to make its case before this Court while appearing before the 1 st Respondent to record a statement over the same issues.
2. The application is supported by the affidavit of Kajuju Marete of the same date. Mr. Marete who is the Legal Manager of the Applicant reiterates the grounds set out in the application and avers that the granting of the orders sought is necessary in order to meet the ends of justice. This Court issued directions for the hearing and determination of this application but the same have not been complied with. The Applicant has not filed any submissions as directed by the Court. Nevertheless, the same will be determined on the basis of the averments in the application, supporting affidavit and the documents relied upon.
3. The Applicant has sought a stay of the investigations against its officers pending the hearing and determination of the application. It is recalled that this prayer was considered by this Court earlier and declined. Grant of stay is a discretionary question requiring the Court to consider the circumstances of each particular case. A stay of proceedings is a serious and exceptional remedy because it interferes with the constitutional mandate of independent offices. In this case, a party seeking stay of investigations must demonstrate exceptional circumstances that would justify such a stay.
4. The summons which the Applicant seeks to stop have been issued by the 1 st Respondent on the direction of the 2 nd Respondent to undertake further investigative steps before a decision can be made by the 2 nd Respondent on whether charges can be preferred. On the face of these summons and also because at this stage the Court is not invited to make a substantive determination on the judicial review orders being sought, the Court does not find anything to suggest that this process should be interfered with. The decision whether or not to prefer any charges against the officers of the Applicant rests with the 2 nd Respondent.
5. I do not find any exceptional circumstances that can be considered in stopping the 1 st Respondent from undertaking its investigative mandate. No party has a right to be immune from investigations. This prayer is not merited and the same is hereby dismissed. In any case, the main suit has been set down for judgment in a few days. Costs shall be in the main cause.
Dated and Delivered this 16 th day of September, 2026.
Nabil M. Orina
Judge
Ruling virtually delivered virtually in the presence of:
Mr. Oruko h/b for Mr. Maatwa for the 1 st & 2 nd respondents
Mr. Emukule for the 3 rd Respondent
Linda - Court Assistant
Ruling - Nairobi (Milimani) HCJRMisc No. E088 of 2026
2. The application is supported by the affidavit of Kajuju Marete of the same date. Mr. Marete who is the Legal Manager of the Applicant reiterates the grounds set out in the application and avers that the granting of the orders sought is necessary in order to meet the ends of justice. This Court issued directions for the hearing and determination of this application but the same have not been complied with. The Applicant has not filed any submissions as directed by the Court. Nevertheless, the same will be determined on the basis of the averments in the application, supporting affidavit and the documents relied upon.
3. The Applicant has sought a stay of the investigations against its officers pending the hearing and determination of the application. It is recalled that this prayer was considered by this Court earlier and declined. Grant of stay is a discretionary question requiring the Court to consider the circumstances of each particular case. A stay of proceedings is a serious and exceptional remedy because it interferes with the constitutional mandate of independent offices. In this case, a party seeking stay of investigations must demonstrate exceptional circumstances that would justify such a stay.
4. The summons which the Applicant seeks to stop have been issued by the 1 st Respondent on the direction of the 2 nd Respondent to undertake further investigative steps before a decision can be made by the 2 nd Respondent on whether charges can be preferred. On the face of these summons and also because at this stage the Court is not invited to make a substantive determination on the judicial review orders being sought, the Court does not find anything to suggest that this process should be interfered with. The decision whether or not to prefer any charges against the officers of the Applicant rests with the 2 nd Respondent.
5. I do not find any exceptional circumstances that can be considered in stopping the 1 st Respondent from undertaking its investigative mandate. No party has a right to be immune from investigations. This prayer is not merited and the same is hereby dismissed. In any case, the main suit has been set down for judgment in a few days. Costs shall be in the main cause.
Dated and Delivered this 16 th day of September, 2026.
Nabil M. Orina
Judge
Ruling virtually delivered virtually in the presence of:
Mr. Oruko h/b for Mr. Maatwa for the 1 st & 2 nd respondents
Mr. Emukule for the 3 rd Respondent
Linda - Court Assistant
Ruling - Nairobi (Milimani) HCJRMisc No. E088 of 2026