RULING
1. The notice of Motion Application dated 9th July 2026 seeks the following orders:-
i) Spent.
ii) that pending the hearing and determination of this application, this Honourable court be pleased to issue orders restraining the Respondents, whether by themselves, their officers, servants, agents or anyone acting on their behalf ,from arresting, pursuing, confining, intimidating, arraigning, prosecuting or otherwise interfering with the liberty of the petitioners/Applicants herein.
iii)………….
iv)……………
v)…………….
vi)…………….
vii)…………….
2. The application is premised on the grounds on the face of the application amend is further supported by the supporting affidavit of Daniel Kipsang Chebii dated 9th July 2026.
3. When parties appeared before court for directions on the hearing of the application, Learned Counsel for the applicant, Mr. Okatch sought for time, to file a supplementary affidavit, together with submissions in light of the response filed and by the Learned Counsel for the 1st to 4th Respondent.
4. Additionally, he also sought that prayer No. 2 of the application be allowed in the interim. He submitted that the reply filed by the respondents was full of admissions. That the applicant had suffered in hand so of Mr. Kiptoo in that they were attacked and later rescued by the police. He went on to state that the applicants had been in the premises owned by Mr. Kiptoo, and that the case being investigated is in a bid to cover up the complaints raised and reported by the applicant against Mr. Kiptoo.
5. The application was opposed. In opposing the application for grant of prayer No. 2, Miss Rop submitted that the applicant had sought for blanket orders seeking to stop the arrest of the applicant, and further that prayer no. 3 was speculative. That no specific rights alleged to have been threatened have been disclosed. She also submitted that the allegations were made against one Mr. Kiptoo who has not been enjoined in this case.
6. She went to state that the investigations that were being conducted were supported by an attached Occurrence Book entry. That the complaint was for loss of Ksh 300 million. She submitted that parties were ready to fast track the hearing of the petition herein.
7. In his rejoinder, Mr.Okatch submitted that the applicant was not seeking to convert the current court to a criminal court, but wished to demonstrate that there is a violation of Constitutional rights. That it was within the mandate of the court to grant prayer No.2 in the interim.
Determination.
8. This court is alive to the fact that this the ruling is on whether prayer No. 2 ought to be granted in the interim. Parties have since filed their respective pleadings, and directions on the herring of the main application is yet to be taken.
9. The fact that there are investigations taking place against the applicant herein is not in dispute.
10. The applicant has also demonstrated that he has filed complaints against one Mr. Kiptoo.
11. I have perused the lengthy supporting affidavit filed by the applicant and find that he has not demonstrated how his rights are likely to be infringed by the 1st to the 4th respondents. He has not been summoned, neither have the respondents sought to have him arrested at all.
12. The supporting affidavit also contains averments against one Mr. Kiptoo, who had not been enjoined in this case. There is nothing specific directly touching on the conduct of the respondents at this stage.
13. The applicant concedes to the fact that they are not opposed to the ongoing investigations. I thus find that the instant application is premature.
14. I find no good ground has been advanced to warrant the grant of prayer No.2 in the interim.
15. It is so ordered.
DELIVERED, DATED AND SIGNED ON 31ST JULY 2026.
RULING DELIVERED THROUGH MICROSOFT TEAMS ONLINE PLATFORM.
MARTHA MUTUKU.
JUDGE
In the presence of: -
Mr. Okatch for Applicant.
Miss Rop for the Respondents.
Court Assistant – Mr.Kibet.
1. The notice of Motion Application dated 9th July 2026 seeks the following orders:-
i) Spent.
ii) that pending the hearing and determination of this application, this Honourable court be pleased to issue orders restraining the Respondents, whether by themselves, their officers, servants, agents or anyone acting on their behalf ,from arresting, pursuing, confining, intimidating, arraigning, prosecuting or otherwise interfering with the liberty of the petitioners/Applicants herein.
iii)………….
iv)……………
v)…………….
vi)…………….
vii)…………….
2. The application is premised on the grounds on the face of the application amend is further supported by the supporting affidavit of Daniel Kipsang Chebii dated 9th July 2026.
3. When parties appeared before court for directions on the hearing of the application, Learned Counsel for the applicant, Mr. Okatch sought for time, to file a supplementary affidavit, together with submissions in light of the response filed and by the Learned Counsel for the 1st to 4th Respondent.
4. Additionally, he also sought that prayer No. 2 of the application be allowed in the interim. He submitted that the reply filed by the respondents was full of admissions. That the applicant had suffered in hand so of Mr. Kiptoo in that they were attacked and later rescued by the police. He went on to state that the applicants had been in the premises owned by Mr. Kiptoo, and that the case being investigated is in a bid to cover up the complaints raised and reported by the applicant against Mr. Kiptoo.
5. The application was opposed. In opposing the application for grant of prayer No. 2, Miss Rop submitted that the applicant had sought for blanket orders seeking to stop the arrest of the applicant, and further that prayer no. 3 was speculative. That no specific rights alleged to have been threatened have been disclosed. She also submitted that the allegations were made against one Mr. Kiptoo who has not been enjoined in this case.
6. She went to state that the investigations that were being conducted were supported by an attached Occurrence Book entry. That the complaint was for loss of Ksh 300 million. She submitted that parties were ready to fast track the hearing of the petition herein.
7. In his rejoinder, Mr.Okatch submitted that the applicant was not seeking to convert the current court to a criminal court, but wished to demonstrate that there is a violation of Constitutional rights. That it was within the mandate of the court to grant prayer No.2 in the interim.
Determination.
8. This court is alive to the fact that this the ruling is on whether prayer No. 2 ought to be granted in the interim. Parties have since filed their respective pleadings, and directions on the herring of the main application is yet to be taken.
9. The fact that there are investigations taking place against the applicant herein is not in dispute.
10. The applicant has also demonstrated that he has filed complaints against one Mr. Kiptoo.
11. I have perused the lengthy supporting affidavit filed by the applicant and find that he has not demonstrated how his rights are likely to be infringed by the 1st to the 4th respondents. He has not been summoned, neither have the respondents sought to have him arrested at all.
12. The supporting affidavit also contains averments against one Mr. Kiptoo, who had not been enjoined in this case. There is nothing specific directly touching on the conduct of the respondents at this stage.
13. The applicant concedes to the fact that they are not opposed to the ongoing investigations. I thus find that the instant application is premature.
14. I find no good ground has been advanced to warrant the grant of prayer No.2 in the interim.
15. It is so ordered.
DELIVERED, DATED AND SIGNED ON 31ST JULY 2026.
RULING DELIVERED THROUGH MICROSOFT TEAMS ONLINE PLATFORM.
MARTHA MUTUKU.
JUDGE
In the presence of: -
Mr. Okatch for Applicant.
Miss Rop for the Respondents.
Court Assistant – Mr.Kibet.