Skip to content
JudgmentMALORI AND BUSES PARTS LIMITED AND HAROLD SHAKKE MWANGONDI VS State Law Office AND Anti Counterfeit Authority (ACA) AND 1 Others2 min read

MALORI AND BUSES PARTS LIMITED AND HAROLD SHAKKE MWANGONDI VS State Law Office AND Anti Counterfeit Authority (ACA) AND 1 Others

High Court at Milimani High Court · · R. E. Aburili

REPUBLIC OF KENYA

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT NAIROBI

MILIMANI LAW COURTS

CONSTITUTIONAL AND HUMAN RIGHTS DIVISION

PETITION NO. E294 OF 2026

MALORI & BUSES PARTS LTD .......................................... 1 ST PETITIONER

HAROLD SHAKKE MWANG’ONDI ...................................2 ND PETITIONER

VERSUS

THE ANTI COUNTERFEIT AUTHORITY .......................1 ST RESPONDENT

SCANIA EAST AFRICA LIMITED.....................................2 ND RESPONDENT

THE HON. ATTORNEY GENERAL...................................3 RD RESPONDENT

RULING

1. The petitioner’s counsel seeks for an interim conservatory order staying the taking of plea and prosecution of the 2 nd petitioner, submitting that her client has been charged at Mavoko Law courts, and that this court should stay the Criminal prosecution because the 2 nd petitioner is challenging the investigations and hence, the charges levelled against him, it is important to note that Criminal Prosecution can only be instituted and the prosecution be mounted by the Director of Public Prosecutions pursuant to Article 157 6 of the Constitution.

2. The 2 nd petitioner has been charged before a court of competent jurisdiction and is being prosecuted by the Director of Public Prosecutions, with the 1 st respondent being the main complainant on alleged counterfeit offences.

3. However, the Director of Public Prosecutions is not a party to these proceedings and neither is the court which has received the charges against the 2 nd petitioner.

4. In the circumstances, this court cannot stay a prosecution or taking of the plea as sought, noting that the petitioner has the right to raise any issues of law before the criminal trial court and should this court find that the petitioner has established a prima facie case, then it is not prevented from making appropriate orders after a substantive hearing of the application for conservatory orders. The court is ready to hear the parties only that not all the parties have complied with the directions given on 2/6/2026.

5. In the premises I am not satisfied that the court should grant any interim conservatory orders sought, which I hereby decline.

6. Parties to appear for highlighting of their submissions on the conservatory orders on 10/7/2026.

7. With the concurrence of all parties to this petition, the Director of Public Prosecutions is hereby enjoined to these proceedings as the 4 th respondent and as Ms Kihara for ODPP is present in court, the petitioners’ counsel is directed to forthwith serve upon the ODPP all pleadings and responses filed. The DPP has three days of today to file and serve a response and brief written submissions to the application dated 8 th May, 2026.

8. Meanwhile, the application dated 15/6/2026 filed by the petitioner, under certificate of urgency is hereby marked as wholly withdrawn with no orders as to costs, on the oral application by the petitioner’s counsel Ms Wachira.

9. The 2 nd respondent is granted 7 days of today to comply with the court’s directions given on 2/6/2026.

10. I so order.

Dated, Signed and Delivered at Nairobi this 2 nd Day of July, 2026

R.E ABURILI

JUDGE

Page 2 of 2

Details

Delivered
Court rank
High Court

Related decisions

Published for information only — not legal advice. Check the official record before relying on this text. Talk to an advocate