Introduction
1. The petition dated 26 th November 2024 is supported by the petitioner’s affidavit in support of even date, the Further Affidavit dated 25 th March 2025 and a Supplementary Affidavit dated 28 th May 2025.
2. The petition challenges the arrest and detention of the petitioner by the 1 st respondent on grounds the arrest was unlawful and evidence subsequently
obtained and relied against him was procured in violation of his constitutional rights.
3. The petitioner thus seeks the following reliefs: -
a) A declaration that the rights of the petitioner were violated and/or threatened to be violated by the respondent under Article 19(2), (3), 20, 21(1), 22, 23, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 31, 35, 40, 48, 49(1)(a), (f), (g), (h), 50(1), 73 and 75 of the Constitution of Kenya.
b) A declaration that the petitioner’s constitutional rights to a fair trial were violated by the 5 th , 6 th and 7 th respondents.
c) A declaration that the 5 th , 6 th , 7 th and 8 th respondents failed to follow the due process of the law in arresting, investigating and prosecuting the petitioner.
d) A declaration that the prosecution of the petitioner in MCCR No. E1114 OF 2024 was brought for extraneous purposes to extort fraudulently from the petitioner and amounts to abuse of police power and due process.
e) A declaration that the court is under a duty to exercise its inherent power and jurisdiction to protect against an abuse of its process.
f) An order of Certiorari to move this court to quash the entire proceedings in the Chief Magistrate’s Court at Milimani Criminal Case No. E1114 of 2024.
g) An order of prohibition directed to the respondents prohibiting further proceedings in the Chief Magistrate’s Court at Milimani Criminal Case No. E1114 of 2024 and further prohibiting the respondents from instituting any further charges against the petitioner in respect to the subject.
h) That in view of the conduct and actions of the 5 th , 6 th , 7 th , 8 th an d9th respondents, the court be pleased to issue an order of compensation in the sum of Kshs. 1 million as general, punitive and extemporary damages payable to the petitioner for defamation, illegal seizure of his tools of trade, loss of social capital, illegal detention and malicious prosecution payable to the petitioner by the government of the Republic of Kenya for the odious acts of its officers.
i) That the court be pleased to issue an order that the 5 th , 6 th and 7 th respondents be investigated and be prosecuted for the offences that they will be found culpable as a lesson to all police officers who may be of similar inclination.
j) Special damages of Kshs. 13 million outstanding balance owed to the petitioner by the 1 st respondent, this figure may go up once the tools of trade are released to the petitioner.
k) General damages.
l) Costs of the petition.
m) Any other relief that this Honourable Court considers appropriate and just to grant.
4. In opposition to the petition, the1 st , 2 nd and 3 rd respondents filed Replying Affidavits dated 5 th March 2025, the 4 th , 6 th and 7 th respondents filed a Replying Affidavit dated 14 th May 2025, the 8 th respondent and 1 st Interested Party filed Grounds of Opposition dated 6 th February 2025 and the 2 nd Interested Party filed Grounds of Opposition dated 10 th January 2025.
The Petitioner’s Case
5. The petitioner is a surveyor by profession but currently operating as a travel consultant t/a Elreezahly Consultant Limited providing general consultancy services on visa application travel advisory and air ticketing.
6. He avers that he was introduced to the 1 st respondent in the year 2020 by a travel broker by the name Bernard Ogada. The 1 st respondent then approached him and informed him that she had sixty clients who needed travel visas and she wanted to use one successful application to enable her obtain money disappear. However, the petitioner he rebuked her informing her that it would
be anti-business and a criminal offence to do such a thing and she thus vanished.
7. The 1 st respondent reappeared at his offices in January 2022 based at Embassy House and informed him that she was ready to do business with him in processing travel visa.
8. The petitioner avers that he asked the 1 st respondent to pay Kshs. 125,000/- for every client she brought for visa processing. The 1 st respondent then negotiated a non-refundable amount of Kshs. 50,000/- instead of paying Kshs. 125,000/-with refundable amount of Kshs. 70,000/- in case the visa application did not go through. The petitioner states that he thus had an express contract with the 1 st respondent on behalf of Golden Key Travel Consultant Limited where he received jobs from the 1 st respondent at a fee.
9. In the year 2023, some applications started receiving bans from the Canadian Embassy because some of the applicants were not able to respond to the interview at the embassy in line with the information provided at the time of the application. He further processed visas on behalf of the 1 st respondent and forwarded them to her in good faith expecting to be paid his commission but
he did not receive the payments as the 1 st respondent was good at giving excuses that her clients had not paid up.
10. Further in 2023, he received a complaint from one of the 1 st respondent’s clients by the name Brian Mugalla who alleged that he had paid the 1 st respondent for the visa and air ticket but was unable to secure his travel documents from the 1 st respondent. The said Brian Mugalla got his number from another agent called Janet Mwangi. The petitioner avers that upon verifying the claim, he discovered that Brian Mugalla had sent money to the 1 st respondent of about Kshs. 700,000/- for the visa and air-ticket and the 1 st respondent had not collected the travel documents from the petitioner upon payment of Kshs. 250,000/-, she did not pay the petitioner in time and therefore the documents expired. The petitioner therefore reached out to the 1 st respondent to return the air ticket money to Brian Mugalla and pay him his commission which she did not do hence did not release the said documents to the 1 st respondent.
11. It is at that point that he realized that the 1 st respondent received money from clients for processing visas but was not paying the petitioner his commission. That behaviour made her clients suffer because they could not get their travel documents despite having paid the 1 st respondent for the visas as she failed to
pay him to release the travel documents which he held as security for his fees. The travel documents consisted of application summary for the applicant which would let the applicant know what had been applied for so as to be able to
respond to the immigration question at either Jomo Kenyatta International Airport, or the country of destination, conference letter/invitation letter, hotel booking confirmation and host details.
12. The petitioner reveals that he had processed many visas and delivered them to the 1 st respondent and instead of the 1 st respondent paying the petitioner for the work he had done at the agreed commission, she had instead squandered client’s money and never collected the travel documents which stuck with him making the visa applicant loose money by failing to travel.
13. The petitioner averred that the criminal proceedings instituted at the Chief Magistrate’s Court at Milimani Criminal Case No. MCCRE 1114 of 2024 was born out of the said controversy. He stated that the 1 st respondent collected lots of money from visa applicants and authorised him to process visas but ended up not paying for processing fees, making him not to release the travel documents.
14. The petitioner contends that the 1 st respondent misled the police to have him prosecuted on her behalf for an offence the 1 st respondent is directly responsible. The petitioner contends that the 1 st respondent cannot prove a case of obtaining money by false pretences against him as he never directly received money from the applicants; there was a working arrangement between
the 1 st respondent and himself which the 1 st respondent failed to honour and misled the police to seize his tools of trade which include computers and mobile phones to try and extract the information of the visa applicants by the petitioner to use it as evidence illegally.
15. The petitioner averred that upon realizing the 1 st respondent’s craftiness, he demanded an audit of all the visa applications referred to him by the 1 st respondent and demanded that the 1 st respondent do pay him his outstanding balance of approximately Kshs. 13 million subjects to verification from the gadgets illegally held by the 5 th , 6 th and 7 th respondents.
16. The Petitioner alleges that as a result, he began receiving threats from the 1 st respondent. On 5 th September, he was arrested by officers from Langata Police criminal investigation officers on the allegations that he had obtained money from the 1 st respondent’s alleged consultancy company. He explained the whole
17. story of his relationship with the 1 st respondent and he was released on 6 th September without charges being preferred. The complainant at Langata was not disclosed as the 1 st respondent had covertly lodged a complaint through a proxy.
18. On 17 th October, he was arrested by surprise by a team of policemen with guns blazing in the company of the 1 st and 2 nd respondents who collected all his computers, his wife’s computers, mobile phones, power banks and two vehicles a land rover and Honda saloon travel car and cash in the amount of USD 20,000/-. An inventory of the items was made but not availed to him save for
what his wife was able to take a photo on her phone. The said items are illegally detained at the DCI headquarters Nairobi.
19. The petitioner avers that instead of producing him in court on 18 th of October, the 5 th , 6 th and 7 th respondents paraded a photo of him on their X page warning the public to keep away from him thus condemning him unheard and exposing him to public ridicule, embarrassment and effectively destroying his image. He was produced at Kibera Chief Magistrate’s Court by the 5 th , 6 th and 7 th respondents with a miscellaneous application alleging that he had obtained Kshs. 89,185,000/- from the 1 st respondent and the officers requested for some days to enable them complete investigations. The court granted the request
and ordered his release at a cash bail of Kshs. 5 million which was reviewed by the High Court to Kshs. 200,000/-. The petitioner argues that upon the 5 th , 6 th and 7 th respondents becoming aware of the order to release him on Kshs. 200,000/- bail, they diverted the court from Kibera to Milimani Chief Magistrate’s Court again subjecting him to another bail application and the bail was set at Kshs. 400,000/-.
20. The petitioner contends that he was illegally detained at the police station beyond 24 hours as he was arrested on 17 th October 2024 at 2.00 am and produced in court on 22 nd October at Kibera law courts contrary to Article 49(f) and (g). He was further subjected to torture and mental agony when the arresting officers ditched Kibera law courts for Milimani law courts with a view to subjecting him to fresh bond terms as a ploy to keep him in custody for a long time contrary to Article 25 of the Constitution. The petitioner states that he was wantonly carried away by the 4 th , 5 th and 6 th respondents whereby his
right to privacy in his home was violated in front of his wife and young children at 2 am; further, his right to privacy and security of person was violated by the 5 th , 6 th and 7 th respondents when they paraded his photo on their page on X contrary to Article 29 and 31 of the Constitution thereby publicly embarrassing him and humiliating him on their X page and facebook pages, that the 5 th , 6 th and 7 th respondents subjected him to economic sabotage by making sure all his
clients and potential clients were notified of his ruthless evil and criminal behaviour therefore making sure that his social security was destroyed contrary to Article 42(e) of the Constitution; was subjected to inhuman, cruel and degrading treatment by the 5 th , 6 th and 7 th respondents through physical assault in the police station by compelling to reveal password to his mobile phones and computers which illegally violated his rights to privacy under Article 31 of the Constitution.
21. The petitioner argues that the 1 st respondent is a serial con fraudster and identity thief who has no locus standi to accuse him of the offences she has committed. Further, the 1 st respondent does not have any connection with Goldenkey Travel Consultancy Limited as she is not a director or a shareholder or employee of the company. According to the petitioner, the 1 st respondent’s real name is Lydiah Inyangala Keya, that Nancy Nanjira Odhungo is a different person born in 1991 in Bungoma County, whereas the 1 st respondent was born in 1985 in Butere District. The petitioner further contends that the 2 nd respondent is also a fraudster and a conman with a past record of fraud and obtaining money by lase pretences.
The 2 nd & 3 rd Respondents’ Case
22. The 2 nd and 3 rd respondents state that the petitioner is known to the 2 nd respondent. They aver that the petitioner introduced himself as an employee of the Canadian Embassy in Kenya who was capable of assisting the 3 rd respondent in securing visas for its clients.
23. The respondents aver that in the year 2022, the Galden Ket Travel Consultants was registered as a sole proprietorship whereby the 2 nd respondent was an employee at the time. The 2 nd respondent states that his wife, Lydiah Inyangala Keya and her cousin Nancy Nanjira Odhongo were also employees of the said company at the time. The company Galden Key Travel Consultants Limited was incorporated and upon most clients referring to them as Golden Key Travel Consultant Limited, they changed the name to Golden Key Travel Consultant. Limited. The 2 nd respondent avers that as a director of Golden Key Travel Consultant Limited, the company has never transacted at any point with a company known as Elreezahly Consultancy Limited.
24. In reference to MCCR E1114 of 2024, the current complainant, Nancy Nanjira Odhongo is an employee or consultant of the company and has been duly authorized to take action against the petitioner as the funds received by the
petitioner were sent directly by the employee/consultant personal accounts which is regular as per the terms of her employment and the company policy to enable fast tracking of client services. Further, the 2 nd respondent avers that consultant of the 3 rd respondent have duly come forward with similar complaints against the petitioner namely Grace Kwamboka, Benard Kamuren and the Managing Director of Bonventure Aradi.
25. The respondents aver that the petitioner does not offer any evidence of utilization of the funds he received and neither did he produce any evidence as to the hindrance he allegedly faced in undertaking the work for which he had received huge sums of money towards.
26. Further, the 2 nd and 3 rd Respondent depone that all foreign embassies use online platforms for their visa application processes and thus if the petitioner attempted to carry out the work, the information would readily be available on the online platforms and thus retrievable at any time. Additionally, upon not seeing any progress in the visa applications most of their clients in the company refused to make any further payments which the petitioner had insisted and pressed some of their consultants to make so that he could show the progress he had made. Furthermore, three of their clients turned to the Small Claims
Court for refunds and sued the consultants who held their accounts as referenced by the petitioner.
27. The respondents aver that the 2 nd respondent is not a fraudster and there are no running cases against him for obtaining as alleged. They further aver that the subject of the investigations is Kshs. 7,948,650/- but was set to rise to an amount approximately Kshs. 80 million subjects to the DCI Investigators receiving the remainder bank reports and statements from the institution.
28. The petitioner filed a Further Affidavit dated 25 th March 2025. He deponed that he has never dealt with the 2 nd respondent but always dealt with the 1 st respondent. He further states that the 1 st respondent Nancy Nanjira Odhungo’s true name is Lydiah Inyangala Keya and she uses the name Nancy to defraud unsuspecting individuals of their hard-earned money. the 1 st respondent’s
criminal undertakings comprise of fraud, forgery, obtaining money by false pretence, impersonation among others. The petitioner further states that in previous documents, the 1 st respondent has represented herself as a director of the 3 rd respondent despite her name not appearing in the CR12 records. Further, the 1 st respondent’s further statement dated 21 st October 2024 provides that she met him in march 2021 while working as an operations Manager of the 3 rd respondent however the employment contract produced by the 2 nd respondent
contradicts that assertion indicating that she only began working for the 3 rd respondent in March 2022.
29. The petitioner avers that he is unable to produce any documents to substantiate the work he had undertaken as his mobile phones and laptops were confiscated by the 7 th respondent. Despite a court order directing their release, the 7 th respondent has refused to comply, thereby hindering his ability to provide the necessary evidence. He maintains that the 2 nd respondent is a seasoned fraudster and financial swindler as he was previously convicted in Mombasa Criminal Case No. 3900 of 2008 and is presently facing ongoing charges related to forgery before the Makadara Law Courts.
30. The petitioner reiterates that he was arrested on 17 th October 2024 at his home in Rongai by officers from the 7 th respondent however instead of being presented in court on 18 th October 2024, a Friday, the authorities deliberately prolonged his detention over the weekend subjecting him to unnecessary hardship. On 22 nd October 2024, he was arraigned before Kibera Law Courts where the respondents filed a miscellaneous application seeking an extension of time to conduct investigations while he remained in custody. The trial court
dismissed the said application and granted his release on a cash bail of Kshs. 5 million which was reviewed to Kshs. 200,000/- by the High Court further
ordering his immediate release and directed that he appear before the trial court on 31s October 2024. Despite his full compliance with the cash bail terms as ordered by the High Court, the Officer Commanding Station at Capitol Hill Police Station acting in concert with the 4 th , 5 th , 6 th and 7 th respondents wilfully disobeyed the court order and unlawfully declined to release him from custody. They then orchestrated the irregular and unauthorized transfer of his case from Kibera Law Courts to Milimani Law Courts contrary to the court’s directive that he appears on 31 st October 2024 at Kibera Law Courts. He further avers that when he was produced at Kibera Law Courts, a draft charge sheet was annexed to the application seeking his continued detention alleging that he had obtained Kshs. 89,185,000/- but when the case was transferred to Milimani Law Courts, the charge amount drastically reduced to Kshs. 7,948,654/-. The petitioner argues that the significant and unexplained reduction raises serious questions about the credibility of the complainant and the instigators behind the allegations further proving that their claims are nothing more than a blatant fabrication.
31. The petitioner argues that the 4 th , 5 th , 6 th and 7 th respondents are acting in concert with the 1 st , 2 nd and 3 rd respondents to frustrate him and the same is motivated by monetary gain. Further the 4 th , 5 th , 6 th and 7 th respondents and
other officers have mistreated him, defied court orders and detained him unlawfully on the instructions of the 1 st and 2 nd respondents. He avers that the financial statements produced by the prosecution in MCCR No. E1114 of 2024 shows suspicious money transactions undertaken by the 1 st and 2 nd respondents in favour of some police officers who have been involved in the case namely on
2 nd September 2024, the 1 st respondent made a withdrawal of Kshs. 24,000/- at an Mpesa agent at Langata Police Station which coincidentally was the first time he was arrested; on 3 rd , 9 th , 10 th , 19 th and 24 th September 2024 and 11 th October 2024, the 1 st respondent sent amounts of Kshs. 5,000/-, Kshs. 5,000/-, Kshs. 5,000/-, Kshs. 1,030/-, Kshs. 4,000/- and Kshs. 3,500/- respectively to an officer named Kennedy Sifuna Atakwa who is attached to the 7 th respondent; on 3 rd and 5 th September 2024, the 1 st respondent sent Kshs. 15,500/- and Kshs. 20,000/- to an officer named Violet Khalayi who is attached to the 7 th respondent and who took his finger prints during his initial arrest; on 17 th October 2024, the 1 st respondent made a withdrawal of Kshs. 50,000/- at an mpesa agent at Nairobi Area provincial headquarters which was meant to facilitate his second arrest; on 18 th October 2024, the 2 nd respondent effected a withdrawal of Kshs. 30,000/- from an mpesa agent located at Nairobi Area provincial headquarters which was meant to facilitate his continued unlawful arrest and detention and on 21 st October 2024, the 1 st respondent sent Kshs.
10,000/- to a DCI officer known as Elias Mwirigi attached at Nairobi Area provincial headquarters offices.
The 4 th , 6 th & 7 th Respondents’ Case
32. Corporal James Nzyoka No. 79589 swore Replying Affidavit on behalf of the 4 th , 6 th and 7 th Respondents. According to the 4 th , 6 th and 7 th Respondents, the 1 st respondent lodged a complaint at Langata Police Station vide OB No. 42/19/8/2024 and was referred to DCI Nairobi Regional Headquarters.
33. The deponent and his co-investigators including the 4 th respondent were officially assigned to investigate the complaint lodged by the 1 st respondent.
The deponent denied the assertion by the petitioner that he was subjected to intimidation and harassment.
34. The deponent avers that on 17 th October 2024, his fellow officers namely PC Rono, PC Nyabera, PC Kenei Billy, PC Elias Mwirigi were instructed by their team leader, the 4 th respondent to trace and rarest the petitioner. They intercepted the petitioner within Rongai township on the same day at around 2100 hours where they introduced themselves and thereafter the 4 th respondent joined PC Nyabera, PC Rono, PC Mwirigi and himself and they proceeded back to Rongai Township in the company of the petitioner.
35. On arrival at Bagathi Greens Estate, the petitioner was requested to lead them to his house but he began shouting in protest claiming that he never resided within Bagathi Greens Estate. The deponent states that the 5 th respondent was contacted while he was on night duties and he availed himself and assisted in identifying the petitioner’s house which is Terrace Apartment House Number B5. During the petitioner’s arrest and search of his residential house, all items were recorded in his presence and the petitioner was booked in the morning at 5.13 am vide Occurrence Book No. 2 dated 18 th October 2024 at Capitol Hill Police Station after completing search at his residential house. The deponent avers that the 24 hour duration expired past normal court working hours and the court wasn’t sitting until the following Tuesday on 22 nd October 2024 when the petitioner was presented at Kibera Law Courts whereby they sought custodial orders which were granted as per the orders of the court dated 22 nd October 2024. The petitioner however declined to record his further statement upon his arrest to clarify some of the facts raised by the 1 st and 2 nd respondents.
36. The deponent argues that the amount of Kshs. 89,185,000/- was based on the information obtained from the 1 st respondent during the interview and statement recording and based on the evidence available from the relevant financial documents.
37. The 9 th respondent approved the charge of obtaining money by false pretences contrary to Section 313 of the Penal Code for Kshs. 7,948,650. The deponent avers that there is no charge sheet approved by the 9 th respondent for Kshs. 89,185,000/- and presented to Kibera Law Courts as any valid charge sheet must be approved by the 9 th respondent with a duly registered court file number. He further states that the issues raised by the petitioner in paragraphs 9 and 10 were raised by his counsel before the Chief Magistrate’s Court in Milimani during plea taking on 30 th October 2024 and the trial magistrate noted that there was no such information from the court records.
38. In Kibera Chief magistrate’s Court MCCRMISC/E979/2024, the petitioner was granted bond of Kshs. 500,000/- with a surety of similar amount on condition that if he would have secured the bond, he was to be reporting daily to capitol hill police station. However, the petitioner did not furnish the bond as directed by the court and he was escorted to capitol hill police station to assist with the investigations. On 30 th October 2024, the petitioner was arraigned at Chief Magistrate’s Court Milimani whereby plea was taken and he was granted cash bail of Kshs. 400,000/-. Thus the deponent argues that the allegation raised by the petitioner that he was granted cash bail of Kshs. 200,000/- at Kibera law courts was never brought to his attention.
39. The deponent further avers that in Criminal Case No. MCCR E1114 of 2024 the 1 st respondent herein neither introduced herself as a director or a shareholder of Goldenkey Travel Consultant but an employee of the said company.
40. The deponent avers that they obtained financial documents during the investigations for both the petitioner, the 1 st and 2 nd respondents with captured bank and mpesa transactions which shall be relied on during the hearing of Criminal Case E1114 of 2024 to prove that the petitioner actually received the alleged amount of money from the 1 st and 2 nd respondents and other Goldenkey Travel Consultancy company employees. He further states that during investigations of the said criminal case he and his co-investigators interviewed Nancy Nanjira Odhungo holder of Identity Card number 31938259, the 1 st respondent herein and Lydiah Inyangala Keya holder of national identity card number 24847910 who are both prosecution witnesses expected to testify in the criminal case No. MCCR E114 of 2024.
41. The deponent asserts that the allegations that the 5 th , 6 th and 7 th respondents hacked the petitioner’s mobile phones and computers to obtain evidence are falsehood and malicious aimed at damaging his reputation and that of his co-investigators. Further, the petitioner disowned the majority of the confiscated electronic exhibits as captured and only owned up to the ones forwarded to the
Communications Authority of Kenya cybersecurity laboratory. He further asserts that the cyber analysis report is crucial evidence for the prosecution case for it is alleged that all the submission of visa application documents and the information relating to the payments and visa processing shared between the 1 st and 2 nd respondents and the petitioner are contained in the said electronic exhibits that were forwarded to Communications Authority of Kenya for analysis.
Further, motor vehicle registration number KDM 279R Land Rover Discovery registered under the petitioner’s name was bought during the period when the offence was committed and is believed to be part of the proceeds of crime.
The 9 th Respondent & the 1 st Interested Party’s Case
42. The 9 th respondent and 1 st interested party state that the strict interpretation of Article 23 of the Constitution is that a relief for conservatory orders or temporary injunctive orders is prima facie only available when a party is alleging that a right or a fundamental freedom in the Bill of Rights has either been denied, violated, infringed or threatened. The mere allegation that a right or a fundamental freedom of the petitioner has been or is likely to be contravened is not of itself sufficient to entitle the petitioner the remedies sought. Further, they aver that the petitioner has not demonstrated how the 9 th respondent and the 1 st interested party have violated his constitutional rights.
43. The 9 th respondent and 1 st interested party assert that the petition offends Section 107 and 109 of the Evidence Act on the burden of proof as mere generalization assertions and allegations have been made without any supporting evidence for example on the suffering occasioned by the petitioner by themselves. Further by dint of Article 157 of the Constitution as read together with section 5(1)(b)(i) of the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions , the mandate to institute and undertake criminal proceedings against any person before any court in respect of any offence alleged to have been committed lies with the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions.
The 2 nd Interested Party’s Case
44. The 2 nd interested party avers that it is an unnecessary party to the proceedings and it should be struck off the proceedings with the petitioner bearing the costs.
45. The petitioner filed a Supplementary Affidavit dated 28 th May 2025 in rejoinder to the 4 th , 6 th and 7 th respondents’ replying affidavit. He depones that it is false that the complaint initially lodged at Langata Police Station was referred to the DCI Regional Headquarters. The matter ended at Langata P
[...truncated]
1. The petition dated 26 th November 2024 is supported by the petitioner’s affidavit in support of even date, the Further Affidavit dated 25 th March 2025 and a Supplementary Affidavit dated 28 th May 2025.
2. The petition challenges the arrest and detention of the petitioner by the 1 st respondent on grounds the arrest was unlawful and evidence subsequently
obtained and relied against him was procured in violation of his constitutional rights.
3. The petitioner thus seeks the following reliefs: -
a) A declaration that the rights of the petitioner were violated and/or threatened to be violated by the respondent under Article 19(2), (3), 20, 21(1), 22, 23, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 31, 35, 40, 48, 49(1)(a), (f), (g), (h), 50(1), 73 and 75 of the Constitution of Kenya.
b) A declaration that the petitioner’s constitutional rights to a fair trial were violated by the 5 th , 6 th and 7 th respondents.
c) A declaration that the 5 th , 6 th , 7 th and 8 th respondents failed to follow the due process of the law in arresting, investigating and prosecuting the petitioner.
d) A declaration that the prosecution of the petitioner in MCCR No. E1114 OF 2024 was brought for extraneous purposes to extort fraudulently from the petitioner and amounts to abuse of police power and due process.
e) A declaration that the court is under a duty to exercise its inherent power and jurisdiction to protect against an abuse of its process.
f) An order of Certiorari to move this court to quash the entire proceedings in the Chief Magistrate’s Court at Milimani Criminal Case No. E1114 of 2024.
g) An order of prohibition directed to the respondents prohibiting further proceedings in the Chief Magistrate’s Court at Milimani Criminal Case No. E1114 of 2024 and further prohibiting the respondents from instituting any further charges against the petitioner in respect to the subject.
h) That in view of the conduct and actions of the 5 th , 6 th , 7 th , 8 th an d9th respondents, the court be pleased to issue an order of compensation in the sum of Kshs. 1 million as general, punitive and extemporary damages payable to the petitioner for defamation, illegal seizure of his tools of trade, loss of social capital, illegal detention and malicious prosecution payable to the petitioner by the government of the Republic of Kenya for the odious acts of its officers.
i) That the court be pleased to issue an order that the 5 th , 6 th and 7 th respondents be investigated and be prosecuted for the offences that they will be found culpable as a lesson to all police officers who may be of similar inclination.
j) Special damages of Kshs. 13 million outstanding balance owed to the petitioner by the 1 st respondent, this figure may go up once the tools of trade are released to the petitioner.
k) General damages.
l) Costs of the petition.
m) Any other relief that this Honourable Court considers appropriate and just to grant.
4. In opposition to the petition, the1 st , 2 nd and 3 rd respondents filed Replying Affidavits dated 5 th March 2025, the 4 th , 6 th and 7 th respondents filed a Replying Affidavit dated 14 th May 2025, the 8 th respondent and 1 st Interested Party filed Grounds of Opposition dated 6 th February 2025 and the 2 nd Interested Party filed Grounds of Opposition dated 10 th January 2025.
The Petitioner’s Case
5. The petitioner is a surveyor by profession but currently operating as a travel consultant t/a Elreezahly Consultant Limited providing general consultancy services on visa application travel advisory and air ticketing.
6. He avers that he was introduced to the 1 st respondent in the year 2020 by a travel broker by the name Bernard Ogada. The 1 st respondent then approached him and informed him that she had sixty clients who needed travel visas and she wanted to use one successful application to enable her obtain money disappear. However, the petitioner he rebuked her informing her that it would
be anti-business and a criminal offence to do such a thing and she thus vanished.
7. The 1 st respondent reappeared at his offices in January 2022 based at Embassy House and informed him that she was ready to do business with him in processing travel visa.
8. The petitioner avers that he asked the 1 st respondent to pay Kshs. 125,000/- for every client she brought for visa processing. The 1 st respondent then negotiated a non-refundable amount of Kshs. 50,000/- instead of paying Kshs. 125,000/-with refundable amount of Kshs. 70,000/- in case the visa application did not go through. The petitioner states that he thus had an express contract with the 1 st respondent on behalf of Golden Key Travel Consultant Limited where he received jobs from the 1 st respondent at a fee.
9. In the year 2023, some applications started receiving bans from the Canadian Embassy because some of the applicants were not able to respond to the interview at the embassy in line with the information provided at the time of the application. He further processed visas on behalf of the 1 st respondent and forwarded them to her in good faith expecting to be paid his commission but
he did not receive the payments as the 1 st respondent was good at giving excuses that her clients had not paid up.
10. Further in 2023, he received a complaint from one of the 1 st respondent’s clients by the name Brian Mugalla who alleged that he had paid the 1 st respondent for the visa and air ticket but was unable to secure his travel documents from the 1 st respondent. The said Brian Mugalla got his number from another agent called Janet Mwangi. The petitioner avers that upon verifying the claim, he discovered that Brian Mugalla had sent money to the 1 st respondent of about Kshs. 700,000/- for the visa and air-ticket and the 1 st respondent had not collected the travel documents from the petitioner upon payment of Kshs. 250,000/-, she did not pay the petitioner in time and therefore the documents expired. The petitioner therefore reached out to the 1 st respondent to return the air ticket money to Brian Mugalla and pay him his commission which she did not do hence did not release the said documents to the 1 st respondent.
11. It is at that point that he realized that the 1 st respondent received money from clients for processing visas but was not paying the petitioner his commission. That behaviour made her clients suffer because they could not get their travel documents despite having paid the 1 st respondent for the visas as she failed to
pay him to release the travel documents which he held as security for his fees. The travel documents consisted of application summary for the applicant which would let the applicant know what had been applied for so as to be able to
respond to the immigration question at either Jomo Kenyatta International Airport, or the country of destination, conference letter/invitation letter, hotel booking confirmation and host details.
12. The petitioner reveals that he had processed many visas and delivered them to the 1 st respondent and instead of the 1 st respondent paying the petitioner for the work he had done at the agreed commission, she had instead squandered client’s money and never collected the travel documents which stuck with him making the visa applicant loose money by failing to travel.
13. The petitioner averred that the criminal proceedings instituted at the Chief Magistrate’s Court at Milimani Criminal Case No. MCCRE 1114 of 2024 was born out of the said controversy. He stated that the 1 st respondent collected lots of money from visa applicants and authorised him to process visas but ended up not paying for processing fees, making him not to release the travel documents.
14. The petitioner contends that the 1 st respondent misled the police to have him prosecuted on her behalf for an offence the 1 st respondent is directly responsible. The petitioner contends that the 1 st respondent cannot prove a case of obtaining money by false pretences against him as he never directly received money from the applicants; there was a working arrangement between
the 1 st respondent and himself which the 1 st respondent failed to honour and misled the police to seize his tools of trade which include computers and mobile phones to try and extract the information of the visa applicants by the petitioner to use it as evidence illegally.
15. The petitioner averred that upon realizing the 1 st respondent’s craftiness, he demanded an audit of all the visa applications referred to him by the 1 st respondent and demanded that the 1 st respondent do pay him his outstanding balance of approximately Kshs. 13 million subjects to verification from the gadgets illegally held by the 5 th , 6 th and 7 th respondents.
16. The Petitioner alleges that as a result, he began receiving threats from the 1 st respondent. On 5 th September, he was arrested by officers from Langata Police criminal investigation officers on the allegations that he had obtained money from the 1 st respondent’s alleged consultancy company. He explained the whole
17. story of his relationship with the 1 st respondent and he was released on 6 th September without charges being preferred. The complainant at Langata was not disclosed as the 1 st respondent had covertly lodged a complaint through a proxy.
18. On 17 th October, he was arrested by surprise by a team of policemen with guns blazing in the company of the 1 st and 2 nd respondents who collected all his computers, his wife’s computers, mobile phones, power banks and two vehicles a land rover and Honda saloon travel car and cash in the amount of USD 20,000/-. An inventory of the items was made but not availed to him save for
what his wife was able to take a photo on her phone. The said items are illegally detained at the DCI headquarters Nairobi.
19. The petitioner avers that instead of producing him in court on 18 th of October, the 5 th , 6 th and 7 th respondents paraded a photo of him on their X page warning the public to keep away from him thus condemning him unheard and exposing him to public ridicule, embarrassment and effectively destroying his image. He was produced at Kibera Chief Magistrate’s Court by the 5 th , 6 th and 7 th respondents with a miscellaneous application alleging that he had obtained Kshs. 89,185,000/- from the 1 st respondent and the officers requested for some days to enable them complete investigations. The court granted the request
and ordered his release at a cash bail of Kshs. 5 million which was reviewed by the High Court to Kshs. 200,000/-. The petitioner argues that upon the 5 th , 6 th and 7 th respondents becoming aware of the order to release him on Kshs. 200,000/- bail, they diverted the court from Kibera to Milimani Chief Magistrate’s Court again subjecting him to another bail application and the bail was set at Kshs. 400,000/-.
20. The petitioner contends that he was illegally detained at the police station beyond 24 hours as he was arrested on 17 th October 2024 at 2.00 am and produced in court on 22 nd October at Kibera law courts contrary to Article 49(f) and (g). He was further subjected to torture and mental agony when the arresting officers ditched Kibera law courts for Milimani law courts with a view to subjecting him to fresh bond terms as a ploy to keep him in custody for a long time contrary to Article 25 of the Constitution. The petitioner states that he was wantonly carried away by the 4 th , 5 th and 6 th respondents whereby his
right to privacy in his home was violated in front of his wife and young children at 2 am; further, his right to privacy and security of person was violated by the 5 th , 6 th and 7 th respondents when they paraded his photo on their page on X contrary to Article 29 and 31 of the Constitution thereby publicly embarrassing him and humiliating him on their X page and facebook pages, that the 5 th , 6 th and 7 th respondents subjected him to economic sabotage by making sure all his
clients and potential clients were notified of his ruthless evil and criminal behaviour therefore making sure that his social security was destroyed contrary to Article 42(e) of the Constitution; was subjected to inhuman, cruel and degrading treatment by the 5 th , 6 th and 7 th respondents through physical assault in the police station by compelling to reveal password to his mobile phones and computers which illegally violated his rights to privacy under Article 31 of the Constitution.
21. The petitioner argues that the 1 st respondent is a serial con fraudster and identity thief who has no locus standi to accuse him of the offences she has committed. Further, the 1 st respondent does not have any connection with Goldenkey Travel Consultancy Limited as she is not a director or a shareholder or employee of the company. According to the petitioner, the 1 st respondent’s real name is Lydiah Inyangala Keya, that Nancy Nanjira Odhungo is a different person born in 1991 in Bungoma County, whereas the 1 st respondent was born in 1985 in Butere District. The petitioner further contends that the 2 nd respondent is also a fraudster and a conman with a past record of fraud and obtaining money by lase pretences.
The 2 nd & 3 rd Respondents’ Case
22. The 2 nd and 3 rd respondents state that the petitioner is known to the 2 nd respondent. They aver that the petitioner introduced himself as an employee of the Canadian Embassy in Kenya who was capable of assisting the 3 rd respondent in securing visas for its clients.
23. The respondents aver that in the year 2022, the Galden Ket Travel Consultants was registered as a sole proprietorship whereby the 2 nd respondent was an employee at the time. The 2 nd respondent states that his wife, Lydiah Inyangala Keya and her cousin Nancy Nanjira Odhongo were also employees of the said company at the time. The company Galden Key Travel Consultants Limited was incorporated and upon most clients referring to them as Golden Key Travel Consultant Limited, they changed the name to Golden Key Travel Consultant. Limited. The 2 nd respondent avers that as a director of Golden Key Travel Consultant Limited, the company has never transacted at any point with a company known as Elreezahly Consultancy Limited.
24. In reference to MCCR E1114 of 2024, the current complainant, Nancy Nanjira Odhongo is an employee or consultant of the company and has been duly authorized to take action against the petitioner as the funds received by the
petitioner were sent directly by the employee/consultant personal accounts which is regular as per the terms of her employment and the company policy to enable fast tracking of client services. Further, the 2 nd respondent avers that consultant of the 3 rd respondent have duly come forward with similar complaints against the petitioner namely Grace Kwamboka, Benard Kamuren and the Managing Director of Bonventure Aradi.
25. The respondents aver that the petitioner does not offer any evidence of utilization of the funds he received and neither did he produce any evidence as to the hindrance he allegedly faced in undertaking the work for which he had received huge sums of money towards.
26. Further, the 2 nd and 3 rd Respondent depone that all foreign embassies use online platforms for their visa application processes and thus if the petitioner attempted to carry out the work, the information would readily be available on the online platforms and thus retrievable at any time. Additionally, upon not seeing any progress in the visa applications most of their clients in the company refused to make any further payments which the petitioner had insisted and pressed some of their consultants to make so that he could show the progress he had made. Furthermore, three of their clients turned to the Small Claims
Court for refunds and sued the consultants who held their accounts as referenced by the petitioner.
27. The respondents aver that the 2 nd respondent is not a fraudster and there are no running cases against him for obtaining as alleged. They further aver that the subject of the investigations is Kshs. 7,948,650/- but was set to rise to an amount approximately Kshs. 80 million subjects to the DCI Investigators receiving the remainder bank reports and statements from the institution.
28. The petitioner filed a Further Affidavit dated 25 th March 2025. He deponed that he has never dealt with the 2 nd respondent but always dealt with the 1 st respondent. He further states that the 1 st respondent Nancy Nanjira Odhungo’s true name is Lydiah Inyangala Keya and she uses the name Nancy to defraud unsuspecting individuals of their hard-earned money. the 1 st respondent’s
criminal undertakings comprise of fraud, forgery, obtaining money by false pretence, impersonation among others. The petitioner further states that in previous documents, the 1 st respondent has represented herself as a director of the 3 rd respondent despite her name not appearing in the CR12 records. Further, the 1 st respondent’s further statement dated 21 st October 2024 provides that she met him in march 2021 while working as an operations Manager of the 3 rd respondent however the employment contract produced by the 2 nd respondent
contradicts that assertion indicating that she only began working for the 3 rd respondent in March 2022.
29. The petitioner avers that he is unable to produce any documents to substantiate the work he had undertaken as his mobile phones and laptops were confiscated by the 7 th respondent. Despite a court order directing their release, the 7 th respondent has refused to comply, thereby hindering his ability to provide the necessary evidence. He maintains that the 2 nd respondent is a seasoned fraudster and financial swindler as he was previously convicted in Mombasa Criminal Case No. 3900 of 2008 and is presently facing ongoing charges related to forgery before the Makadara Law Courts.
30. The petitioner reiterates that he was arrested on 17 th October 2024 at his home in Rongai by officers from the 7 th respondent however instead of being presented in court on 18 th October 2024, a Friday, the authorities deliberately prolonged his detention over the weekend subjecting him to unnecessary hardship. On 22 nd October 2024, he was arraigned before Kibera Law Courts where the respondents filed a miscellaneous application seeking an extension of time to conduct investigations while he remained in custody. The trial court
dismissed the said application and granted his release on a cash bail of Kshs. 5 million which was reviewed to Kshs. 200,000/- by the High Court further
ordering his immediate release and directed that he appear before the trial court on 31s October 2024. Despite his full compliance with the cash bail terms as ordered by the High Court, the Officer Commanding Station at Capitol Hill Police Station acting in concert with the 4 th , 5 th , 6 th and 7 th respondents wilfully disobeyed the court order and unlawfully declined to release him from custody. They then orchestrated the irregular and unauthorized transfer of his case from Kibera Law Courts to Milimani Law Courts contrary to the court’s directive that he appears on 31 st October 2024 at Kibera Law Courts. He further avers that when he was produced at Kibera Law Courts, a draft charge sheet was annexed to the application seeking his continued detention alleging that he had obtained Kshs. 89,185,000/- but when the case was transferred to Milimani Law Courts, the charge amount drastically reduced to Kshs. 7,948,654/-. The petitioner argues that the significant and unexplained reduction raises serious questions about the credibility of the complainant and the instigators behind the allegations further proving that their claims are nothing more than a blatant fabrication.
31. The petitioner argues that the 4 th , 5 th , 6 th and 7 th respondents are acting in concert with the 1 st , 2 nd and 3 rd respondents to frustrate him and the same is motivated by monetary gain. Further the 4 th , 5 th , 6 th and 7 th respondents and
other officers have mistreated him, defied court orders and detained him unlawfully on the instructions of the 1 st and 2 nd respondents. He avers that the financial statements produced by the prosecution in MCCR No. E1114 of 2024 shows suspicious money transactions undertaken by the 1 st and 2 nd respondents in favour of some police officers who have been involved in the case namely on
2 nd September 2024, the 1 st respondent made a withdrawal of Kshs. 24,000/- at an Mpesa agent at Langata Police Station which coincidentally was the first time he was arrested; on 3 rd , 9 th , 10 th , 19 th and 24 th September 2024 and 11 th October 2024, the 1 st respondent sent amounts of Kshs. 5,000/-, Kshs. 5,000/-, Kshs. 5,000/-, Kshs. 1,030/-, Kshs. 4,000/- and Kshs. 3,500/- respectively to an officer named Kennedy Sifuna Atakwa who is attached to the 7 th respondent; on 3 rd and 5 th September 2024, the 1 st respondent sent Kshs. 15,500/- and Kshs. 20,000/- to an officer named Violet Khalayi who is attached to the 7 th respondent and who took his finger prints during his initial arrest; on 17 th October 2024, the 1 st respondent made a withdrawal of Kshs. 50,000/- at an mpesa agent at Nairobi Area provincial headquarters which was meant to facilitate his second arrest; on 18 th October 2024, the 2 nd respondent effected a withdrawal of Kshs. 30,000/- from an mpesa agent located at Nairobi Area provincial headquarters which was meant to facilitate his continued unlawful arrest and detention and on 21 st October 2024, the 1 st respondent sent Kshs.
10,000/- to a DCI officer known as Elias Mwirigi attached at Nairobi Area provincial headquarters offices.
The 4 th , 6 th & 7 th Respondents’ Case
32. Corporal James Nzyoka No. 79589 swore Replying Affidavit on behalf of the 4 th , 6 th and 7 th Respondents. According to the 4 th , 6 th and 7 th Respondents, the 1 st respondent lodged a complaint at Langata Police Station vide OB No. 42/19/8/2024 and was referred to DCI Nairobi Regional Headquarters.
33. The deponent and his co-investigators including the 4 th respondent were officially assigned to investigate the complaint lodged by the 1 st respondent.
The deponent denied the assertion by the petitioner that he was subjected to intimidation and harassment.
34. The deponent avers that on 17 th October 2024, his fellow officers namely PC Rono, PC Nyabera, PC Kenei Billy, PC Elias Mwirigi were instructed by their team leader, the 4 th respondent to trace and rarest the petitioner. They intercepted the petitioner within Rongai township on the same day at around 2100 hours where they introduced themselves and thereafter the 4 th respondent joined PC Nyabera, PC Rono, PC Mwirigi and himself and they proceeded back to Rongai Township in the company of the petitioner.
35. On arrival at Bagathi Greens Estate, the petitioner was requested to lead them to his house but he began shouting in protest claiming that he never resided within Bagathi Greens Estate. The deponent states that the 5 th respondent was contacted while he was on night duties and he availed himself and assisted in identifying the petitioner’s house which is Terrace Apartment House Number B5. During the petitioner’s arrest and search of his residential house, all items were recorded in his presence and the petitioner was booked in the morning at 5.13 am vide Occurrence Book No. 2 dated 18 th October 2024 at Capitol Hill Police Station after completing search at his residential house. The deponent avers that the 24 hour duration expired past normal court working hours and the court wasn’t sitting until the following Tuesday on 22 nd October 2024 when the petitioner was presented at Kibera Law Courts whereby they sought custodial orders which were granted as per the orders of the court dated 22 nd October 2024. The petitioner however declined to record his further statement upon his arrest to clarify some of the facts raised by the 1 st and 2 nd respondents.
36. The deponent argues that the amount of Kshs. 89,185,000/- was based on the information obtained from the 1 st respondent during the interview and statement recording and based on the evidence available from the relevant financial documents.
37. The 9 th respondent approved the charge of obtaining money by false pretences contrary to Section 313 of the Penal Code for Kshs. 7,948,650. The deponent avers that there is no charge sheet approved by the 9 th respondent for Kshs. 89,185,000/- and presented to Kibera Law Courts as any valid charge sheet must be approved by the 9 th respondent with a duly registered court file number. He further states that the issues raised by the petitioner in paragraphs 9 and 10 were raised by his counsel before the Chief Magistrate’s Court in Milimani during plea taking on 30 th October 2024 and the trial magistrate noted that there was no such information from the court records.
38. In Kibera Chief magistrate’s Court MCCRMISC/E979/2024, the petitioner was granted bond of Kshs. 500,000/- with a surety of similar amount on condition that if he would have secured the bond, he was to be reporting daily to capitol hill police station. However, the petitioner did not furnish the bond as directed by the court and he was escorted to capitol hill police station to assist with the investigations. On 30 th October 2024, the petitioner was arraigned at Chief Magistrate’s Court Milimani whereby plea was taken and he was granted cash bail of Kshs. 400,000/-. Thus the deponent argues that the allegation raised by the petitioner that he was granted cash bail of Kshs. 200,000/- at Kibera law courts was never brought to his attention.
39. The deponent further avers that in Criminal Case No. MCCR E1114 of 2024 the 1 st respondent herein neither introduced herself as a director or a shareholder of Goldenkey Travel Consultant but an employee of the said company.
40. The deponent avers that they obtained financial documents during the investigations for both the petitioner, the 1 st and 2 nd respondents with captured bank and mpesa transactions which shall be relied on during the hearing of Criminal Case E1114 of 2024 to prove that the petitioner actually received the alleged amount of money from the 1 st and 2 nd respondents and other Goldenkey Travel Consultancy company employees. He further states that during investigations of the said criminal case he and his co-investigators interviewed Nancy Nanjira Odhungo holder of Identity Card number 31938259, the 1 st respondent herein and Lydiah Inyangala Keya holder of national identity card number 24847910 who are both prosecution witnesses expected to testify in the criminal case No. MCCR E114 of 2024.
41. The deponent asserts that the allegations that the 5 th , 6 th and 7 th respondents hacked the petitioner’s mobile phones and computers to obtain evidence are falsehood and malicious aimed at damaging his reputation and that of his co-investigators. Further, the petitioner disowned the majority of the confiscated electronic exhibits as captured and only owned up to the ones forwarded to the
Communications Authority of Kenya cybersecurity laboratory. He further asserts that the cyber analysis report is crucial evidence for the prosecution case for it is alleged that all the submission of visa application documents and the information relating to the payments and visa processing shared between the 1 st and 2 nd respondents and the petitioner are contained in the said electronic exhibits that were forwarded to Communications Authority of Kenya for analysis.
Further, motor vehicle registration number KDM 279R Land Rover Discovery registered under the petitioner’s name was bought during the period when the offence was committed and is believed to be part of the proceeds of crime.
The 9 th Respondent & the 1 st Interested Party’s Case
42. The 9 th respondent and 1 st interested party state that the strict interpretation of Article 23 of the Constitution is that a relief for conservatory orders or temporary injunctive orders is prima facie only available when a party is alleging that a right or a fundamental freedom in the Bill of Rights has either been denied, violated, infringed or threatened. The mere allegation that a right or a fundamental freedom of the petitioner has been or is likely to be contravened is not of itself sufficient to entitle the petitioner the remedies sought. Further, they aver that the petitioner has not demonstrated how the 9 th respondent and the 1 st interested party have violated his constitutional rights.
43. The 9 th respondent and 1 st interested party assert that the petition offends Section 107 and 109 of the Evidence Act on the burden of proof as mere generalization assertions and allegations have been made without any supporting evidence for example on the suffering occasioned by the petitioner by themselves. Further by dint of Article 157 of the Constitution as read together with section 5(1)(b)(i) of the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions , the mandate to institute and undertake criminal proceedings against any person before any court in respect of any offence alleged to have been committed lies with the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions.
The 2 nd Interested Party’s Case
44. The 2 nd interested party avers that it is an unnecessary party to the proceedings and it should be struck off the proceedings with the petitioner bearing the costs.
45. The petitioner filed a Supplementary Affidavit dated 28 th May 2025 in rejoinder to the 4 th , 6 th and 7 th respondents’ replying affidavit. He depones that it is false that the complaint initially lodged at Langata Police Station was referred to the DCI Regional Headquarters. The matter ended at Langata P
[...truncated]