REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT NAIROBI
MILIMANI LAW COURTS
CONSTITUTIONAL AND HUMAN RIGHTS DIVISION
PETITION NO. E229 OF 2026
IN THE MATTER OF THE ENFORCEMENT OF THE FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS AND PROTECTION OF FUNDAMENTAL FREEDOMS THAT HAVE BEEN CONTRAVENED UNDER ARTICLES 2, 10, 20, 21, 22, 23, 25, 27, 28, 29, 39, 48, 49, 50, 165 (3), 258, AND 259 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF KENYA, 2010
AND
IN THE MATTER OF THE UNREASONABLE AND UNJUSTIFIABLE LIMITATION OF THE HUMAN RIGHTS AND FUNDAMENTAL FREEDOMS OF A PERSON, CONTRARY TO THE VALUES AND THE SPIRIT, PURPOSE AND OBJECT OF THE BILL OF RIGHTS
AND
IN THE MATTER OF THE CONSTITUTION OF KENYA (PROTECTION OF RIGHTS AND FUNDAMENTAL FREEDOMS) PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE RULES, 2013)
-BETWEEN-
CHOI KI WON ……………………………..… PETITIONER/APPLICANT
-VERSUS-
SANA INDUSTRIES COMPANY LIMITED T/A ANGELS .…......................................................................................... 1 ST RESPONDENT
INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE .......................... 2 ND RESPONDENT
DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTION .................. 3 RD RESPONDENT
RULING
Introduction
1. The Petitioner, Choi Ki Won, is a Korean national holding Passport number M379xxx28 and claims that he has been lawfully resident in Kenya under Work Permit No. 204xx9 since June 2025.
2. The 1 st Respondent, Sana Industries Company Limited T/A Angels (Company No. C.41467), is a limited liability company duly incorporated under the laws of Kenya and carrying on business at, inter alia , Nairobi and Ruiru, among other locations.
3. The 2 nd Respondent, Inspector General of Police, is the highest-ranking officer, responsible for overall command, administration and strategic leadership of the national Police Service.
4. The 3 rd Respondent, Director of Public Prosecution, is a government office whose mandate as derived from Article 157 of the Constitution to institute and undertake prosecution of criminal cases.
5. The Petitioner herein Choi Ki Won, a Korean national and former manager at Sana Industries Company Limited seeks immediate release from remand, protection from police harassment and the quashing of fabricated sexual harassment charges allegedly orchestrated by his former employer, Sana Industries, following his constructive dismissal and alleged refusal to pay a USD 10,000 ransom for his confiscated passport and vital hypertension medication. In the Petition, he accuses his employer, the Inspector General of Police and the DPP of severe human rights violations, contempt of prior court orders, practices amounting to human trafficking and forced labour.
The Petition
6. In his Petition dated 9 th April 2026, the petitioner seeks the following reliefs:
(1 THAT this Application be certified as urgent and, in light of the Applicant’s state of destitution, imminent threat to life, and continuing violation of constitutional rights, service of the same be dispensed with in the first instance.
(2 THAT pending the hearing and determination of this Application and the Constitutional Petition, or until further Orders of this Honourable Court, the Honourable Court be pleased to ORDER the immediate release of the Applicant on reasonable and lenient bail terms as the Court shall deem just, having regard to the Applicant’s failing health and the circumstances of this case.
(3 THAT pending the hearing and determination of this Application and Constitutional Petition, a conservatory order do issue restraining the Director of Public Prosecutions (ODPP) from instituting, continuing with, or prosecuting any criminal proceedings against the Applicant, and THAT all existing charges or proceedings be stayed forthwith.
(4 THAT pending the hearing and determination of this Application and the Petition, a conservatory order do issue restraining the Inspector General of Police, the 1 st Respondent, their agents and officers, from interfering with, limiting, or otherwise infringing upon the Applicant’s constitutional rights to liberty and movement as guaranteed under the Constitution.
(5 THAT pending the hearing and determination of the Application and the Constitutional Petition, a conservatory order do issue restraining the 1 st Respondent, the Inspector General of Police, all police officers and their agents from harassing, intimidating, threatening, or otherwise interfering with the Applicant in any manner whatsoever.
(6 THAT the Honourable Court do ORDER and DIRECT the 1 st Respondent, the Inspector General of Police, and all persons holding or detaining the Applicant, to physically produce the Applicant before this Honourable Court forthwith for an assessment of his health, physical condition, and well-being, and for the direct protection of his constitutional rights.
(7 THAT the Honourable Court do ORDER and DIRECT the 1 st Respondent and/or the Inspector General of Police, and any officers under their command, specifically the OCS Ruiru Police Station, to immediately and unconditionally release to the Applicant or to his duly instructed Advocates or to an officer of the Court for onward transmission and safe custody:
(a) the Applicant’s passport; and
(b) all personal effects, including but not limited to clothing, wallet, academic documents, permanent resident certificate, and all medication.
(8 THAT IN THE ALTERNATIVE, the Honourable Court do order and direct the Inspector General of Police, and/or such officer having custody or oversight of the Applicant, to immediately transfer the Applicant to a suitable medical facility for urgent medical assessment and necessary treatment, with access to all prescribed medication, pending further Orders of the Court.
(9 THAT this Honourable Court be pleased to make such further orders as may ensure the full protection of the Applicant’s rights to dignity, fair process, and freedom from inhuman and degrading treatment as provided under the Constitution of Kenya, 2010.
(10 THAT the Inspector General of Police specifically, the OCS Ruiru Police Station and the 1st Respondent and its officers, specifically Mr. Jung Hyuk Su, and Mr. Choi Yongsuk be compelled to forthwith comply with the express Orders issued by this Honourable Court on 30th March 2026 in HCCHRPET/E202, and this Honourable Court do require them to show cause why they should not be cited for contempt of court and/or abuse of court process for any wilful disregard thereof. The orders were specific:
i. THAT pending the hearing and determination or until further orders of this Court, an order is hereby issued compelling the Respondent, its servants and/or agents, including specifically the Chief Executive Office, Mr. Jung Hyuk Su and Mr. Choi Yongsu, to forthwith and unconditionally release the Applicant’s passport (No. M37944028) TO THE Officer Commanding Station (OCS), Ruiru Police Station (OCS), Ruiru Police Station who shall hold the same in the meantime as this court may direct.
ii. THAT pending the hearing and determination of this Application or until further orders of this Court, an order is hereby issued compelling the Respondent or its agents to immediately release all personal belongings, including clothing, wallet, medication, and documents, namely dtiver’s license, academic certificates and permanent residence certificate to the Officer Commanding Station, Ruiru Police Station for onward transmission to the Applicant/Petitioner.
iii. In the alternative, an order is hereby issued authorizing the Officer Commanding Station, Ruiru Police Station to designate such number of officers as may be necessary to escort the Applicant/Petitioner, and in the presence of such officers or representatives as the Respondent if it so wishes assign for that purpose, to gain access into the Respondent’s accommodation facility for purposes of enabling the Applicant to collect his said personal belongings.
(11 THAT this Honourable Court do DECLARE that the 1st Respondent and/or its officers and agents have violated the Applicant’s fundamental rights under Articles 27, 28, 29, and 39 of the Constitution by unlawfully withholding the Applicant’s passport and personal property, denying him terminal dues, and subjecting him to exploitative, unfair, and inhuman treatment amounting to forced labour or human trafficking.
(12 THAT the Honourable Court do DECLARE that the 1st Respondent, its officers, and/or agents have subjected the Applicant to human trafficking, cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment, and constructive dismissal, in violation of Kenyan law and international human rights obligations.
(13 THAT the Honourable Court do DECLARE that the continued withholding of the Applicant’s passport, personal property, and terminal dues by the 1st Respondent, its agents or officers is illegal, unconstitutional, and in flagrant contravention of Section 24(3) of the Kenya Citizenship and Immigration Act (Cap 170).
(14 THAT the Honourable Court do DECLARE that the 2nd and 3rd Respondents have breached their constitutional obligations by failing to uphold justice, ensure fairness, and adhere to established procedures necessary for the attainment of justice.
(15 THAT the Honourable Court do ORDER the 3rd Respondent to quash any ongoing criminal proceedings against the Applicant, citing reasons of malicious prosecution, abuse of authority, and failure to comply with the Criminal Procedure Code (CAP 75) as well as the Constitution of Kenya (2010).
(16 THAT the Honourable Court do ORDER the 1st Respondent to pay to the Applicant general damages assessed for the violation of his constitutional rights and fundamental freedoms.
(17 THAT the Honourable Court do ORDER the 1st Respondent to pay the Applicant special damages in the sum of USD 40,000, or such other amount as the Court may find just and appropriate, for emotional and psychological suffering, homelessness, and distress occasioned by their unlawful conduct.
(18 THAT the Honourable Court do ORDER the 1st Respondent to bear the full costs of this Application and the Petition.
(19 THAT this Honourable Court do grant such further or other Orders as may be just, appropriate, and necessary in the circumstances to uphold the public interest and vindicate the Applicant’s constitutional rights.
7. The Petition is supported by the Petitioner’s affidavit sworn on even date. Concurrently with this Petition, the Petitioner also filed a NOTICE OF MOTION APPLICATION dated 9 th April 2026 under Certificate of Urgency which forms the basis of this determination, seeking the following ORDERS: -
Ex-Parte Orders that pending the hearing and determination of this Application:
(1 THAT this Application be certified as urgent and, in light of the Applicant’s state of destitution, imminent threat to life, and continuing violation of constitutional rights, service of the same be dispensed with in the first instance.
(2 THAT pending the hearing and determination of this Application and the Constitutional Petition, or until further Orders of this Honourable Court, the Honourable Court be pleased to ORDER the immediate release of the Applicant on reasonable and lenient bail terms as the Court shall deem just, having regard to the Applicant’s failing health and the circumstances of this case.
(3 THAT pending the hearing and determination of this Application and Constitutional Petition, a conservatory order do issue restraining the Director of Public Prosecutions (ODPP) from instituting, continuing with, or prosecuting any criminal proceedings against the Applicant, and THAT all existing charges or proceedings be stayed forthwith.
(4 THAT pending the hearing and determination of this Application and the Petition, a conservatory order do issue restraining the Inspector General of Police, the 1st Respondent, their agents and officers, from interfering with, limiting, or otherwise infringing upon the Applicant’s constitutional rights to liberty and movement as guaranteed under the Constitution.
(5 THAT pending the hearing and determination of the Application and the Constitutional Petition, a conservatory order do issue restraining the 1st Respondent, the Inspector General of Police, all police officers and their agents from harassing, intimidating, threatening, or otherwise interfering with the Applicant in any manner whatsoever.
(6 THAT the Honourable Court do ORDER and DIRECT the 1st Respondent, the Inspector General of Police, and all persons holding or detaining the Applicant, to physically produce the Applicant before this Honourable Court forthwith for an assessment of his health, physical condition, and well-being, and for the direct protection of his constitutional rights.
(7 THAT the Honourable Court do ORDER and DIRECT the 1st Respondent and/or the Inspector General of Police, and any officers under their command, specifically the OCS Ruiru Police Station, to immediately and unconditionally release to the Applicant or to his duly instructed Advocates or to an officer of the Court for onward transmission and safe custody:
(a) the Applicant’s passport; and
(b) all personal effects, including but not limited to clothing, wallet, academic documents, permanent resident certificate, and all medication.
(8 THAT IN THE ALTERNATIVE, the Honourable Court do order and direct the Inspector General of Police, and/or such officer having custody or oversight of the Applicant, to immediately transfer the Applicant to a suitable medical facility for urgent medical assessment and necessary treatment, with access to all prescribed medication, pending further Orders of the Court.
(9 THAT this Honourable Court be pleased to make such further orders as may ensure the full protection of the Applicant’s rights to dignity, fair process, and freedom from inhuman and degrading treatment as provided under the Constitution of Kenya, 2010.
Inter-partes Orders that pending determination and hearing of the Petition:-
(10 THAT the Inspector General of Police specifically, the OCS Ruiru Police Station and the 1st Respondent and its officers, specifically Mr. Jung Hyuk Su, and Mr. Choi Yongsuk be compelled to forthwith comply with the express Orders issued by this Honourable Court on 30th March 2026 in HCCHRPET/E202, and this Honourable Court do require them to show cause why they should not be cited for contempt of court and/or abuse of court process for any wilful disregard thereof. The orders were specific:
i) THAT pending the hearing and determination or until further orders of this Court, an order is hereby issued compelling the Respondent, its servants and/or agents, including specifically the Chief Executive Office, Mr. Jung Hyuk Su and Mr. Choi Yongsu, to forthwith and unconditionally release the Applicant’s passport (No. M37944028) TO THE Officer Commanding Station (OCS), Ruiru Police Station (OCS), Ruiru Police Station who shall hold the same in the meantime as this court may direct.
ii) THAT pending the hearing and determination of this Application or until further orders of this Court, an order is hereby issued compelling the Respondent or its agents to immediately release all personal belongings, including clothing, wallet, medication, and documents, namely driver’s license, academic certificates and permanent residence certificate to the Officer Commanding Station, Ruiru Police Station for onward transmission to the Applicant/Petitioner.
iii) In the alternative, an order is hereby issued authorizing the Officer Commanding Station, Ruiru Police Station to designate such number of officers as may be necessary to escort the Applicant/Petitioner, and in the presence of such officers or representatives as the Respondent if it so wishes assign for that purpose, to gain access into the Respondent’s accommodation facility for purposes of enabling the Applicant to collect his said personal belongings.
(11 THAT this Honourable Court do DECLARE that the 1st Respondent and/or its officers and agents have violated the Applicant’s fundamental rights under Articles 27, 28, 29, and 39 of the Constitution by unlawfully withholding the Applicant’s passport and personal property, denying him terminal dues, and subjecting him to exploitative, unfair, and inhuman treatment amounting to forced labour or human trafficking.
(12 THAT the Honourable Court do DECLARE that the 1st Respondent, its officers, and/or agents have subjected the Applicant to human trafficking, cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment, and constructive dismissal, in violation of Kenyan law and international human rights obligations.
(13 THAT the Honourable Court do DECLARE that the continued withholding of the Applicant’s passport, personal property, and terminal dues by the 1st Respondent, its agents or officers is illegal, unconstitutional, and in flagrant contravention of Section 24(3) of the Kenya Citizenship and Immigration Act (Cap 170).
(14 THAT the Honourable Court do DECLARE that the 2nd and 3rd Respondents have breached their constitutional obligations by failing to uphold justice, ensure fairness, and adhere to established procedures necessary for the attainment of justice.
(15 THAT the Honourable Court do ORDER the 3rd Respondent to quash any ongoing criminal proceedings against the Applicant, citing reasons of malicious prosecution, abuse of authority, and failure to comply with the Criminal Procedure Code (CAP 75) as well as the Constitution of Kenya (2010).
(16 THAT the Honourable Court do ORDER the 1st Respondent to pay to the Applicant general damages assessed for the violation of his constitutional rights and fundamental freedoms.
(17 THAT the Honourable Court do ORDER the 1st Respondent to pay the Applicant special damages in the sum of USD 40,000, or such other amount as the Court may find just and appropriate, for emotional and psychological suffering, homelessness, and distress occasioned by their unlawful conduct.
(18 THAT the Honourable Court do ORDER the 1st Respondent to bear the full costs of this Application and the Petition.
(19 THAT this Honourable Court do grant such further or other Orders as may be just, appropriate, and necessary in the circumstances to uphold the public interest and vindicate the Applicant’s constitutional rights.
8. The Application is supported by the Petitioner’s sworn affidavit on even date and several grounds enlisted on the face of it. The petitioner asserts that he is a Korean National residing in Kenya and was employed as a manager at the 1 st Respondent’s establishment under Work Permit No. 204659 since June 2025 and that upon employment, Sana Industries confiscated his passport but briefly released it in December 2025 to allow his to travel to Korea and seized it again in January 2026 upon his return to Kenya.
9. He avers that following his constructive dismissal on 18 th March 2026, due to alleged oppressive working conditions, company executives unlawfully continued to confiscate his passport, wallet, academic credentials and vital medication and forcibly ejecting him from company accommodation and demanding a $10,000 ransom for the return of the confiscated items.
10. The Petitioner alleges that after he sought consular assistance from the Korean Embassy, company officials orchestrated his arrest on fabricated sexual harassment charges.
11. The Petitioner contends that court orders issued on 30 th March 2026 in HCCHRPET/E202/2026 requiring the release of his passport, medical supplies and belongings to the Ruiru Police Station were ignored by both the 1 st Respondent and police officers, specifically the OCS, Ruiru Police Station.
12. He asserts that during plea-taking on 2 nd April 2026, the prosecution successfully opposed bail by falsely claiming he was a flight risk despite being fully aware that his passport remained unlawfully withheld leading to his remand at Thika Main & Women Prison. He complains that the Prosecution also served him charge documents in court without prior notice which amounted to trial by ambush.
13. The Petitioner avers that his health has severely deteriorated in remand without access to hypertension medication and he has been denied basic necessities since 18 th March 2026. He also states that he has been forced to wear the same clothing since his eviction exposing him to extreme indignity and life-threatening health risks.
14. The Petitioner characterizes the employer’s conduct as systemic forced labour and human trafficking, stating that his case presents critical issues of public interest involving serious constitutional, statutory and international human rights violations. He asserts that the Respondents’ actions are illegal, ultra vires and directly violate Section 24(3) of the Kenya Citizenship and Immigration Act as well as the Constitution.
15. He confirms that the Court has jurisdiction to grant conservatory orders under Articles 23(3) and 165(3)(b) of the Constitution and that he has established a prima facie case with a strong likelihood of success, demonstrating that he will suffer severe constitutional prejudice if interim orders are denied.
16. The Petitioner also acknowledges the constitutional independence of the DPP under Article 157(10) of th Constitution but notes this power is not absolute and that accordingly, the court must intervene to prevent prosecutorial power from being abused for private vendettas or ulterior motives.
17. The Petitioner urges the Court to urgently grant interim orders to safeguard his liberty, return his passport and personal property, and prevent further irreparable harm. He pleads that granting these orders serves the interests of justice and will cause no prejudice to the Respondents.
18. In response to the Application, the 1 st Respondent Sana Industries Company Ltd T/A Angels filed a Replying Affidavits sworn by AGNES KAGWIRIA, the Human Resource Manager dated 2 nd May 2026 . The 1 st Respondent opposes the Petition and Application stating that the Petitioner, a Korean national, voluntarily resigned from his position as factory manager on 18 th March 2026 after having formally commenced work under a Class D work permit in February 2026, which the company had applied and paid for on his behalf.
19. The deponent explains that the company originally came into possession of the Petitioner’s passport because he voluntarily surrendered it for work permit processing, denying any allegations that the company ever unlawfully withheld or conditioned the release of his passport, personal items, or medication.
20. Furthermore, it is asserted that the company has fully complied with prior court directions by releasing the Petitioner’s passport to the Officer Commanding Ruiru Police Station on 2 nd April 2026 pursuant to orders issued in HCCHRPET E202/2026, while his remaining personal effects left at his former company residence were released to him directly.
21. The deponent addresses the criminal proceedings and clarifies that the 1 st Respondent is not a party to them and did not instigate the sexual assault charges facing the Petitioner; rather, those charges arose independently from individual complaints lodged by several employees alleging physical and sexual assault.
22. Consequently, the deponent maintains that the current Application and Petition are frivolous, lacking in merit and amount to an abuse of court process. Further, that they are sub judice given similar claims have been raised in prior litigation in Milimani HCCHRPET No. E202/2026 Choi Ki Won v Sana Industries Company Ltd . It is urged that the court dismisses the suit with costs.
23. The 3 rd Respondent the Director of Public Prosecutions filed Grounds of Opposition dated 7 th May 2026 raising 13 grounds of opposition against the Petition and Notice of Motion Application which can be summarized as follows:
24. The 3 rd Respondent contends that the pleadings are misconceived and incompetent because they fail to specify how the DPP threatened or violated the Petitioner’s fundamental rights. Citing judicial precedents in Anarita Karimi -Versus-Republic (No.1) (1979 1 KLR 154 and Mumo Matemu -Versus-Trusted Society of Human Rights Alliance, Civil Appeal No.290 of 2012(2013) , the DPP asserts that the Petitioner has failed to meet the required legal standard by not defining with reasonable precision the alleged constitutional infringements.
25. It is argued that the Petitioner misapprehended the separate constitutional mandates of police investigations and prosecutorial duties and asserts that granting the requested orders would violate the doctrine of separation of powers by improperly interfering with the DPP’s independent prosecutorial discretion under Article 157(10) .
26. The DPP avers that its mandate only crystallizes upon receipt of independent review of investigation files and finally prosecutions. It further maintains that due process was followed after receiving a formal investigation file from the Directorate of Criminal Investigations and charges were preferred strictly based on available evidence.
27. It is asserted that the Petitioner has failed to demonstrate any exceptional circumstances, malice, bad faith, or procedural impropriety that would justify judicial intervention in the prosecution. Further, that the issues raised in the Petition and Notice of Motion Application are speculative and abstract and do not disclose a real or imminent controversy capable of adjudication by this Honourable Court as against the 3 rd Respondent since both the Petition and Application are a well-orchestrated attempt to scuttle and derail lawful investigative and criminal justice processes through premature constitutional litigation.
28. Additionally, the DPP notes that the suit improperly attempts to review bond terms without exhausting established criminal remedies, improperly seeks to attribute actions of third parties to the DPP and ultimately constitutes an abuse of court process and is an unjustified judicial interference that would set a dangerous precedent that undermines lawful investigation.
29. The parties took directions to canvass the Petition by oral submissions.
The Petitioner’s Submissions
30. Ms. Muinde, counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the Petitioner is a Korean National employed by the 1 st Respondent as a manager. She submits that the 1 st Respondent confiscated all his documents including academic documents and money was extorted from him which he reported to the Korean Embassy. It is submitted that six (6) police officers then arrested him and alleged that he was sexually harassing junior employees of the 1 st Respondent. He was charged with 3 counts of sexual harassment and one count of assault of junior employees of the 1 st Respondent.
31. Counsel submitted that when they appeared on 2 nd June 2026 for plea taking, the Prosecution opposed the Petitioner’s release on bond on the grounds that he was a flight risk yet his passport was confiscated by the 1 st Respondent. She stated that they had obtained interim orders from the High court for release of his documents and other items and asserted that the Petitioner had no access to his documents, wallet and medication until he was released on cash bail.
32. Their submissions are that the prosecution is malicious and that the Petitioner was asked for USD 10,000 to get back his passport and when he reported to the Korean embassy is when he was arrested and charged. It is their case that the police failed to comply with orders of the Court to release his passport.
33. Counsel submits that the Petitioner was discriminated against and was coerced to submit his passport to the 1 st Respondent yet other employees were not asked to do the same, which is contrary to KCIA. It is asserted that the 2 nd and 3 rd Respondents failed to uphold the constitution and justice; that the 1 st Respondent violated the Petitioner’s rights under the Constitution and subjected him to inhumane treatment. Counsel informed the Court that the Petitioner was arrested on 18 th March 2026 on the very same day that he resigned from the 1 st Respondent’s employment.
The Respondents’ Submissions
34. Mr. Njuguna for the 1 st Respondent submitted that they oppose the Application dated 9 th April 2026 and relied on the Replying Affidavit sworn on 2 nd May 2026 by Agnes Kagwiria. Counsel submitted that the Application is defective on the face of it and that the prayers are of a substantive nature, not temporary.
35. Counsel submitted that considering the merits of the Application, it does not meet the threshold of a conservatory order. The Petition and Application allege three violations which are withholding the passport, withholding personal belongings and instigating Criminal proceedings against the Petitioner.
36. It is submitted that the Petitioner’s passport was confiscated in Ruiru Court MCCRSO NO. E021/2025 in enforcement of bail terms granted to him on 20 th April 2026. That Orders issued in Pet E202/2026 were complied with and the 1 st Respondent released the passport and his personal belongings to the OCS which were handed over to him. Counsel states that the Replying Affidavit does not indicate how the items were or how they found themselves in custody of the 1 st Respondent.
37. On instigation of criminal proceedings, it is submitted that there is no evidence of malice or non-compliance with legal procedures. Counsel states that there are real victims assaulted by the Petitioner and he was arrested and released on the same day then he took plea before being remanded pending pre-bail report and was released on bond. That the criminal matter is due for hearing on 18 th August 2026 and the Petitioner will have his day in court.
38. Counsel submitted that the 1 st Respondent has no role to play in that case as it is not a complainant. There is also no e
[...truncated]
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT NAIROBI
MILIMANI LAW COURTS
CONSTITUTIONAL AND HUMAN RIGHTS DIVISION
PETITION NO. E229 OF 2026
IN THE MATTER OF THE ENFORCEMENT OF THE FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS AND PROTECTION OF FUNDAMENTAL FREEDOMS THAT HAVE BEEN CONTRAVENED UNDER ARTICLES 2, 10, 20, 21, 22, 23, 25, 27, 28, 29, 39, 48, 49, 50, 165 (3), 258, AND 259 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF KENYA, 2010
AND
IN THE MATTER OF THE UNREASONABLE AND UNJUSTIFIABLE LIMITATION OF THE HUMAN RIGHTS AND FUNDAMENTAL FREEDOMS OF A PERSON, CONTRARY TO THE VALUES AND THE SPIRIT, PURPOSE AND OBJECT OF THE BILL OF RIGHTS
AND
IN THE MATTER OF THE CONSTITUTION OF KENYA (PROTECTION OF RIGHTS AND FUNDAMENTAL FREEDOMS) PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE RULES, 2013)
-BETWEEN-
CHOI KI WON ……………………………..… PETITIONER/APPLICANT
-VERSUS-
SANA INDUSTRIES COMPANY LIMITED T/A ANGELS .…......................................................................................... 1 ST RESPONDENT
INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE .......................... 2 ND RESPONDENT
DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTION .................. 3 RD RESPONDENT
RULING
Introduction
1. The Petitioner, Choi Ki Won, is a Korean national holding Passport number M379xxx28 and claims that he has been lawfully resident in Kenya under Work Permit No. 204xx9 since June 2025.
2. The 1 st Respondent, Sana Industries Company Limited T/A Angels (Company No. C.41467), is a limited liability company duly incorporated under the laws of Kenya and carrying on business at, inter alia , Nairobi and Ruiru, among other locations.
3. The 2 nd Respondent, Inspector General of Police, is the highest-ranking officer, responsible for overall command, administration and strategic leadership of the national Police Service.
4. The 3 rd Respondent, Director of Public Prosecution, is a government office whose mandate as derived from Article 157 of the Constitution to institute and undertake prosecution of criminal cases.
5. The Petitioner herein Choi Ki Won, a Korean national and former manager at Sana Industries Company Limited seeks immediate release from remand, protection from police harassment and the quashing of fabricated sexual harassment charges allegedly orchestrated by his former employer, Sana Industries, following his constructive dismissal and alleged refusal to pay a USD 10,000 ransom for his confiscated passport and vital hypertension medication. In the Petition, he accuses his employer, the Inspector General of Police and the DPP of severe human rights violations, contempt of prior court orders, practices amounting to human trafficking and forced labour.
The Petition
6. In his Petition dated 9 th April 2026, the petitioner seeks the following reliefs:
(1 THAT this Application be certified as urgent and, in light of the Applicant’s state of destitution, imminent threat to life, and continuing violation of constitutional rights, service of the same be dispensed with in the first instance.
(2 THAT pending the hearing and determination of this Application and the Constitutional Petition, or until further Orders of this Honourable Court, the Honourable Court be pleased to ORDER the immediate release of the Applicant on reasonable and lenient bail terms as the Court shall deem just, having regard to the Applicant’s failing health and the circumstances of this case.
(3 THAT pending the hearing and determination of this Application and Constitutional Petition, a conservatory order do issue restraining the Director of Public Prosecutions (ODPP) from instituting, continuing with, or prosecuting any criminal proceedings against the Applicant, and THAT all existing charges or proceedings be stayed forthwith.
(4 THAT pending the hearing and determination of this Application and the Petition, a conservatory order do issue restraining the Inspector General of Police, the 1 st Respondent, their agents and officers, from interfering with, limiting, or otherwise infringing upon the Applicant’s constitutional rights to liberty and movement as guaranteed under the Constitution.
(5 THAT pending the hearing and determination of the Application and the Constitutional Petition, a conservatory order do issue restraining the 1 st Respondent, the Inspector General of Police, all police officers and their agents from harassing, intimidating, threatening, or otherwise interfering with the Applicant in any manner whatsoever.
(6 THAT the Honourable Court do ORDER and DIRECT the 1 st Respondent, the Inspector General of Police, and all persons holding or detaining the Applicant, to physically produce the Applicant before this Honourable Court forthwith for an assessment of his health, physical condition, and well-being, and for the direct protection of his constitutional rights.
(7 THAT the Honourable Court do ORDER and DIRECT the 1 st Respondent and/or the Inspector General of Police, and any officers under their command, specifically the OCS Ruiru Police Station, to immediately and unconditionally release to the Applicant or to his duly instructed Advocates or to an officer of the Court for onward transmission and safe custody:
(a) the Applicant’s passport; and
(b) all personal effects, including but not limited to clothing, wallet, academic documents, permanent resident certificate, and all medication.
(8 THAT IN THE ALTERNATIVE, the Honourable Court do order and direct the Inspector General of Police, and/or such officer having custody or oversight of the Applicant, to immediately transfer the Applicant to a suitable medical facility for urgent medical assessment and necessary treatment, with access to all prescribed medication, pending further Orders of the Court.
(9 THAT this Honourable Court be pleased to make such further orders as may ensure the full protection of the Applicant’s rights to dignity, fair process, and freedom from inhuman and degrading treatment as provided under the Constitution of Kenya, 2010.
(10 THAT the Inspector General of Police specifically, the OCS Ruiru Police Station and the 1st Respondent and its officers, specifically Mr. Jung Hyuk Su, and Mr. Choi Yongsuk be compelled to forthwith comply with the express Orders issued by this Honourable Court on 30th March 2026 in HCCHRPET/E202, and this Honourable Court do require them to show cause why they should not be cited for contempt of court and/or abuse of court process for any wilful disregard thereof. The orders were specific:
i. THAT pending the hearing and determination or until further orders of this Court, an order is hereby issued compelling the Respondent, its servants and/or agents, including specifically the Chief Executive Office, Mr. Jung Hyuk Su and Mr. Choi Yongsu, to forthwith and unconditionally release the Applicant’s passport (No. M37944028) TO THE Officer Commanding Station (OCS), Ruiru Police Station (OCS), Ruiru Police Station who shall hold the same in the meantime as this court may direct.
ii. THAT pending the hearing and determination of this Application or until further orders of this Court, an order is hereby issued compelling the Respondent or its agents to immediately release all personal belongings, including clothing, wallet, medication, and documents, namely dtiver’s license, academic certificates and permanent residence certificate to the Officer Commanding Station, Ruiru Police Station for onward transmission to the Applicant/Petitioner.
iii. In the alternative, an order is hereby issued authorizing the Officer Commanding Station, Ruiru Police Station to designate such number of officers as may be necessary to escort the Applicant/Petitioner, and in the presence of such officers or representatives as the Respondent if it so wishes assign for that purpose, to gain access into the Respondent’s accommodation facility for purposes of enabling the Applicant to collect his said personal belongings.
(11 THAT this Honourable Court do DECLARE that the 1st Respondent and/or its officers and agents have violated the Applicant’s fundamental rights under Articles 27, 28, 29, and 39 of the Constitution by unlawfully withholding the Applicant’s passport and personal property, denying him terminal dues, and subjecting him to exploitative, unfair, and inhuman treatment amounting to forced labour or human trafficking.
(12 THAT the Honourable Court do DECLARE that the 1st Respondent, its officers, and/or agents have subjected the Applicant to human trafficking, cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment, and constructive dismissal, in violation of Kenyan law and international human rights obligations.
(13 THAT the Honourable Court do DECLARE that the continued withholding of the Applicant’s passport, personal property, and terminal dues by the 1st Respondent, its agents or officers is illegal, unconstitutional, and in flagrant contravention of Section 24(3) of the Kenya Citizenship and Immigration Act (Cap 170).
(14 THAT the Honourable Court do DECLARE that the 2nd and 3rd Respondents have breached their constitutional obligations by failing to uphold justice, ensure fairness, and adhere to established procedures necessary for the attainment of justice.
(15 THAT the Honourable Court do ORDER the 3rd Respondent to quash any ongoing criminal proceedings against the Applicant, citing reasons of malicious prosecution, abuse of authority, and failure to comply with the Criminal Procedure Code (CAP 75) as well as the Constitution of Kenya (2010).
(16 THAT the Honourable Court do ORDER the 1st Respondent to pay to the Applicant general damages assessed for the violation of his constitutional rights and fundamental freedoms.
(17 THAT the Honourable Court do ORDER the 1st Respondent to pay the Applicant special damages in the sum of USD 40,000, or such other amount as the Court may find just and appropriate, for emotional and psychological suffering, homelessness, and distress occasioned by their unlawful conduct.
(18 THAT the Honourable Court do ORDER the 1st Respondent to bear the full costs of this Application and the Petition.
(19 THAT this Honourable Court do grant such further or other Orders as may be just, appropriate, and necessary in the circumstances to uphold the public interest and vindicate the Applicant’s constitutional rights.
7. The Petition is supported by the Petitioner’s affidavit sworn on even date. Concurrently with this Petition, the Petitioner also filed a NOTICE OF MOTION APPLICATION dated 9 th April 2026 under Certificate of Urgency which forms the basis of this determination, seeking the following ORDERS: -
Ex-Parte Orders that pending the hearing and determination of this Application:
(1 THAT this Application be certified as urgent and, in light of the Applicant’s state of destitution, imminent threat to life, and continuing violation of constitutional rights, service of the same be dispensed with in the first instance.
(2 THAT pending the hearing and determination of this Application and the Constitutional Petition, or until further Orders of this Honourable Court, the Honourable Court be pleased to ORDER the immediate release of the Applicant on reasonable and lenient bail terms as the Court shall deem just, having regard to the Applicant’s failing health and the circumstances of this case.
(3 THAT pending the hearing and determination of this Application and Constitutional Petition, a conservatory order do issue restraining the Director of Public Prosecutions (ODPP) from instituting, continuing with, or prosecuting any criminal proceedings against the Applicant, and THAT all existing charges or proceedings be stayed forthwith.
(4 THAT pending the hearing and determination of this Application and the Petition, a conservatory order do issue restraining the Inspector General of Police, the 1st Respondent, their agents and officers, from interfering with, limiting, or otherwise infringing upon the Applicant’s constitutional rights to liberty and movement as guaranteed under the Constitution.
(5 THAT pending the hearing and determination of the Application and the Constitutional Petition, a conservatory order do issue restraining the 1st Respondent, the Inspector General of Police, all police officers and their agents from harassing, intimidating, threatening, or otherwise interfering with the Applicant in any manner whatsoever.
(6 THAT the Honourable Court do ORDER and DIRECT the 1st Respondent, the Inspector General of Police, and all persons holding or detaining the Applicant, to physically produce the Applicant before this Honourable Court forthwith for an assessment of his health, physical condition, and well-being, and for the direct protection of his constitutional rights.
(7 THAT the Honourable Court do ORDER and DIRECT the 1st Respondent and/or the Inspector General of Police, and any officers under their command, specifically the OCS Ruiru Police Station, to immediately and unconditionally release to the Applicant or to his duly instructed Advocates or to an officer of the Court for onward transmission and safe custody:
(a) the Applicant’s passport; and
(b) all personal effects, including but not limited to clothing, wallet, academic documents, permanent resident certificate, and all medication.
(8 THAT IN THE ALTERNATIVE, the Honourable Court do order and direct the Inspector General of Police, and/or such officer having custody or oversight of the Applicant, to immediately transfer the Applicant to a suitable medical facility for urgent medical assessment and necessary treatment, with access to all prescribed medication, pending further Orders of the Court.
(9 THAT this Honourable Court be pleased to make such further orders as may ensure the full protection of the Applicant’s rights to dignity, fair process, and freedom from inhuman and degrading treatment as provided under the Constitution of Kenya, 2010.
Inter-partes Orders that pending determination and hearing of the Petition:-
(10 THAT the Inspector General of Police specifically, the OCS Ruiru Police Station and the 1st Respondent and its officers, specifically Mr. Jung Hyuk Su, and Mr. Choi Yongsuk be compelled to forthwith comply with the express Orders issued by this Honourable Court on 30th March 2026 in HCCHRPET/E202, and this Honourable Court do require them to show cause why they should not be cited for contempt of court and/or abuse of court process for any wilful disregard thereof. The orders were specific:
i) THAT pending the hearing and determination or until further orders of this Court, an order is hereby issued compelling the Respondent, its servants and/or agents, including specifically the Chief Executive Office, Mr. Jung Hyuk Su and Mr. Choi Yongsu, to forthwith and unconditionally release the Applicant’s passport (No. M37944028) TO THE Officer Commanding Station (OCS), Ruiru Police Station (OCS), Ruiru Police Station who shall hold the same in the meantime as this court may direct.
ii) THAT pending the hearing and determination of this Application or until further orders of this Court, an order is hereby issued compelling the Respondent or its agents to immediately release all personal belongings, including clothing, wallet, medication, and documents, namely driver’s license, academic certificates and permanent residence certificate to the Officer Commanding Station, Ruiru Police Station for onward transmission to the Applicant/Petitioner.
iii) In the alternative, an order is hereby issued authorizing the Officer Commanding Station, Ruiru Police Station to designate such number of officers as may be necessary to escort the Applicant/Petitioner, and in the presence of such officers or representatives as the Respondent if it so wishes assign for that purpose, to gain access into the Respondent’s accommodation facility for purposes of enabling the Applicant to collect his said personal belongings.
(11 THAT this Honourable Court do DECLARE that the 1st Respondent and/or its officers and agents have violated the Applicant’s fundamental rights under Articles 27, 28, 29, and 39 of the Constitution by unlawfully withholding the Applicant’s passport and personal property, denying him terminal dues, and subjecting him to exploitative, unfair, and inhuman treatment amounting to forced labour or human trafficking.
(12 THAT the Honourable Court do DECLARE that the 1st Respondent, its officers, and/or agents have subjected the Applicant to human trafficking, cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment, and constructive dismissal, in violation of Kenyan law and international human rights obligations.
(13 THAT the Honourable Court do DECLARE that the continued withholding of the Applicant’s passport, personal property, and terminal dues by the 1st Respondent, its agents or officers is illegal, unconstitutional, and in flagrant contravention of Section 24(3) of the Kenya Citizenship and Immigration Act (Cap 170).
(14 THAT the Honourable Court do DECLARE that the 2nd and 3rd Respondents have breached their constitutional obligations by failing to uphold justice, ensure fairness, and adhere to established procedures necessary for the attainment of justice.
(15 THAT the Honourable Court do ORDER the 3rd Respondent to quash any ongoing criminal proceedings against the Applicant, citing reasons of malicious prosecution, abuse of authority, and failure to comply with the Criminal Procedure Code (CAP 75) as well as the Constitution of Kenya (2010).
(16 THAT the Honourable Court do ORDER the 1st Respondent to pay to the Applicant general damages assessed for the violation of his constitutional rights and fundamental freedoms.
(17 THAT the Honourable Court do ORDER the 1st Respondent to pay the Applicant special damages in the sum of USD 40,000, or such other amount as the Court may find just and appropriate, for emotional and psychological suffering, homelessness, and distress occasioned by their unlawful conduct.
(18 THAT the Honourable Court do ORDER the 1st Respondent to bear the full costs of this Application and the Petition.
(19 THAT this Honourable Court do grant such further or other Orders as may be just, appropriate, and necessary in the circumstances to uphold the public interest and vindicate the Applicant’s constitutional rights.
8. The Application is supported by the Petitioner’s sworn affidavit on even date and several grounds enlisted on the face of it. The petitioner asserts that he is a Korean National residing in Kenya and was employed as a manager at the 1 st Respondent’s establishment under Work Permit No. 204659 since June 2025 and that upon employment, Sana Industries confiscated his passport but briefly released it in December 2025 to allow his to travel to Korea and seized it again in January 2026 upon his return to Kenya.
9. He avers that following his constructive dismissal on 18 th March 2026, due to alleged oppressive working conditions, company executives unlawfully continued to confiscate his passport, wallet, academic credentials and vital medication and forcibly ejecting him from company accommodation and demanding a $10,000 ransom for the return of the confiscated items.
10. The Petitioner alleges that after he sought consular assistance from the Korean Embassy, company officials orchestrated his arrest on fabricated sexual harassment charges.
11. The Petitioner contends that court orders issued on 30 th March 2026 in HCCHRPET/E202/2026 requiring the release of his passport, medical supplies and belongings to the Ruiru Police Station were ignored by both the 1 st Respondent and police officers, specifically the OCS, Ruiru Police Station.
12. He asserts that during plea-taking on 2 nd April 2026, the prosecution successfully opposed bail by falsely claiming he was a flight risk despite being fully aware that his passport remained unlawfully withheld leading to his remand at Thika Main & Women Prison. He complains that the Prosecution also served him charge documents in court without prior notice which amounted to trial by ambush.
13. The Petitioner avers that his health has severely deteriorated in remand without access to hypertension medication and he has been denied basic necessities since 18 th March 2026. He also states that he has been forced to wear the same clothing since his eviction exposing him to extreme indignity and life-threatening health risks.
14. The Petitioner characterizes the employer’s conduct as systemic forced labour and human trafficking, stating that his case presents critical issues of public interest involving serious constitutional, statutory and international human rights violations. He asserts that the Respondents’ actions are illegal, ultra vires and directly violate Section 24(3) of the Kenya Citizenship and Immigration Act as well as the Constitution.
15. He confirms that the Court has jurisdiction to grant conservatory orders under Articles 23(3) and 165(3)(b) of the Constitution and that he has established a prima facie case with a strong likelihood of success, demonstrating that he will suffer severe constitutional prejudice if interim orders are denied.
16. The Petitioner also acknowledges the constitutional independence of the DPP under Article 157(10) of th Constitution but notes this power is not absolute and that accordingly, the court must intervene to prevent prosecutorial power from being abused for private vendettas or ulterior motives.
17. The Petitioner urges the Court to urgently grant interim orders to safeguard his liberty, return his passport and personal property, and prevent further irreparable harm. He pleads that granting these orders serves the interests of justice and will cause no prejudice to the Respondents.
18. In response to the Application, the 1 st Respondent Sana Industries Company Ltd T/A Angels filed a Replying Affidavits sworn by AGNES KAGWIRIA, the Human Resource Manager dated 2 nd May 2026 . The 1 st Respondent opposes the Petition and Application stating that the Petitioner, a Korean national, voluntarily resigned from his position as factory manager on 18 th March 2026 after having formally commenced work under a Class D work permit in February 2026, which the company had applied and paid for on his behalf.
19. The deponent explains that the company originally came into possession of the Petitioner’s passport because he voluntarily surrendered it for work permit processing, denying any allegations that the company ever unlawfully withheld or conditioned the release of his passport, personal items, or medication.
20. Furthermore, it is asserted that the company has fully complied with prior court directions by releasing the Petitioner’s passport to the Officer Commanding Ruiru Police Station on 2 nd April 2026 pursuant to orders issued in HCCHRPET E202/2026, while his remaining personal effects left at his former company residence were released to him directly.
21. The deponent addresses the criminal proceedings and clarifies that the 1 st Respondent is not a party to them and did not instigate the sexual assault charges facing the Petitioner; rather, those charges arose independently from individual complaints lodged by several employees alleging physical and sexual assault.
22. Consequently, the deponent maintains that the current Application and Petition are frivolous, lacking in merit and amount to an abuse of court process. Further, that they are sub judice given similar claims have been raised in prior litigation in Milimani HCCHRPET No. E202/2026 Choi Ki Won v Sana Industries Company Ltd . It is urged that the court dismisses the suit with costs.
23. The 3 rd Respondent the Director of Public Prosecutions filed Grounds of Opposition dated 7 th May 2026 raising 13 grounds of opposition against the Petition and Notice of Motion Application which can be summarized as follows:
24. The 3 rd Respondent contends that the pleadings are misconceived and incompetent because they fail to specify how the DPP threatened or violated the Petitioner’s fundamental rights. Citing judicial precedents in Anarita Karimi -Versus-Republic (No.1) (1979 1 KLR 154 and Mumo Matemu -Versus-Trusted Society of Human Rights Alliance, Civil Appeal No.290 of 2012(2013) , the DPP asserts that the Petitioner has failed to meet the required legal standard by not defining with reasonable precision the alleged constitutional infringements.
25. It is argued that the Petitioner misapprehended the separate constitutional mandates of police investigations and prosecutorial duties and asserts that granting the requested orders would violate the doctrine of separation of powers by improperly interfering with the DPP’s independent prosecutorial discretion under Article 157(10) .
26. The DPP avers that its mandate only crystallizes upon receipt of independent review of investigation files and finally prosecutions. It further maintains that due process was followed after receiving a formal investigation file from the Directorate of Criminal Investigations and charges were preferred strictly based on available evidence.
27. It is asserted that the Petitioner has failed to demonstrate any exceptional circumstances, malice, bad faith, or procedural impropriety that would justify judicial intervention in the prosecution. Further, that the issues raised in the Petition and Notice of Motion Application are speculative and abstract and do not disclose a real or imminent controversy capable of adjudication by this Honourable Court as against the 3 rd Respondent since both the Petition and Application are a well-orchestrated attempt to scuttle and derail lawful investigative and criminal justice processes through premature constitutional litigation.
28. Additionally, the DPP notes that the suit improperly attempts to review bond terms without exhausting established criminal remedies, improperly seeks to attribute actions of third parties to the DPP and ultimately constitutes an abuse of court process and is an unjustified judicial interference that would set a dangerous precedent that undermines lawful investigation.
29. The parties took directions to canvass the Petition by oral submissions.
The Petitioner’s Submissions
30. Ms. Muinde, counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the Petitioner is a Korean National employed by the 1 st Respondent as a manager. She submits that the 1 st Respondent confiscated all his documents including academic documents and money was extorted from him which he reported to the Korean Embassy. It is submitted that six (6) police officers then arrested him and alleged that he was sexually harassing junior employees of the 1 st Respondent. He was charged with 3 counts of sexual harassment and one count of assault of junior employees of the 1 st Respondent.
31. Counsel submitted that when they appeared on 2 nd June 2026 for plea taking, the Prosecution opposed the Petitioner’s release on bond on the grounds that he was a flight risk yet his passport was confiscated by the 1 st Respondent. She stated that they had obtained interim orders from the High court for release of his documents and other items and asserted that the Petitioner had no access to his documents, wallet and medication until he was released on cash bail.
32. Their submissions are that the prosecution is malicious and that the Petitioner was asked for USD 10,000 to get back his passport and when he reported to the Korean embassy is when he was arrested and charged. It is their case that the police failed to comply with orders of the Court to release his passport.
33. Counsel submits that the Petitioner was discriminated against and was coerced to submit his passport to the 1 st Respondent yet other employees were not asked to do the same, which is contrary to KCIA. It is asserted that the 2 nd and 3 rd Respondents failed to uphold the constitution and justice; that the 1 st Respondent violated the Petitioner’s rights under the Constitution and subjected him to inhumane treatment. Counsel informed the Court that the Petitioner was arrested on 18 th March 2026 on the very same day that he resigned from the 1 st Respondent’s employment.
The Respondents’ Submissions
34. Mr. Njuguna for the 1 st Respondent submitted that they oppose the Application dated 9 th April 2026 and relied on the Replying Affidavit sworn on 2 nd May 2026 by Agnes Kagwiria. Counsel submitted that the Application is defective on the face of it and that the prayers are of a substantive nature, not temporary.
35. Counsel submitted that considering the merits of the Application, it does not meet the threshold of a conservatory order. The Petition and Application allege three violations which are withholding the passport, withholding personal belongings and instigating Criminal proceedings against the Petitioner.
36. It is submitted that the Petitioner’s passport was confiscated in Ruiru Court MCCRSO NO. E021/2025 in enforcement of bail terms granted to him on 20 th April 2026. That Orders issued in Pet E202/2026 were complied with and the 1 st Respondent released the passport and his personal belongings to the OCS which were handed over to him. Counsel states that the Replying Affidavit does not indicate how the items were or how they found themselves in custody of the 1 st Respondent.
37. On instigation of criminal proceedings, it is submitted that there is no evidence of malice or non-compliance with legal procedures. Counsel states that there are real victims assaulted by the Petitioner and he was arrested and released on the same day then he took plea before being remanded pending pre-bail report and was released on bond. That the criminal matter is due for hearing on 18 th August 2026 and the Petitioner will have his day in court.
38. Counsel submitted that the 1 st Respondent has no role to play in that case as it is not a complainant. There is also no e
[...truncated]