' REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT KILGORIS
HIGH COURT MISCELLANEOUS APP NO. E015 OF 2025
(CORAM: HON. CHARLES M. KARIUKI – J)
BETWEEN
NTEEKE KIPUS KIRISWA……………………. ….……………………...APPLICANT
VS
JAMES OLKIYAI SERIANI…………………………………...……1ST RESPONDENT
OGUTTU MBOYA, OCHWAL &
PARTNERS ADVOCATES……………………………………...….2ND RESPONDENT
RULING
BACKGROUND
The Applicant herein filed the instant notice of motion and sought the following orders.
That this application be certified urgent and be heard exparte in the first instance.
That an order of mandamus be and is hereby issued compelling the OCS Kilgoris Police station to arrest and arraign forthwith the respondents herein before the Kilgoris High Court for prosecution of inter alia perjury, subordination of perjury, false swearing, false utterances, including deceitful and false testimonies and statements.
That alternatively and without prejudice to the other (2) above, this honourable Court be pleased to cite James Olkiyai Serian and Oguttu Mboya, Ochwal & Partners Advocates for perjury and subordination of perjury respectively.
That upon citing James Olkiyai Serian and Oguttu Mboya, Ochwal & Partners Advocates for perjury and subordination of perjury, this honourable Court, be pleased to convict the said James Olikiyai Serian and Oguttu Mboya, Ochwal & Partners Advocates for perjury and subordination of perjury to hold to a fine and a term of imprisonment.
That, alternatively to the above orders, this honourable Court to initiate perjury and subordination of perjury proceedings against James Olkiyai Serian and Oguttu Mboya, Ochwal & Partners Advocates by issuing summons requiring James Olkiyai Serian and Oguttu Mboya, Ochwal & Partners Advocates to appear before this honourable Court to answer the charges of perjury and subordination of perjury.
The respondents bear the costs of this application .
Parties were directed to argue the application via submissions:
APPLICANTS SUBMISSIONS :
The 1st and 2nd Respondents should be charged with perjury even after obtaining judgments/rulings and Orders in favour of the 1st Respondent through perjury. Statements given under oath are presumed to be truthful or at least made in good faith. This is why the legal effect of an oath is to subject the person to penalties for perjury if the testimony is found to be false.
The documents annexed to his supporting affidavit dated June 2, 2025, should be forwarded to two institutional entities: the National Registration Bureau in Nairobi and the Document Examiners at DCI Headquarters, to verify who signed the documents—the thumbprints/signatures on the agreements — and who executed them, as well as on which property.
The Court will come to a solid conclusion of the evidence that the 1st Respondent lied under oath to get judgments/rulings and Orders in the suits at the Environment and Land Court at Kilgoris and Kisii with the aid of the 2nd Respondent, who has neither denied nor admitted committing subordination of perjury.
The Land Parcel No. TRANS MARA/OLOMlSlMlS/972, at the centre of this perjury is the proprietary interest in the above parcel of land. "
The 1st Respondent did present evidence to prove that he was the legal and rightful owner of the parcel of land comprised in Title No. TRANS MARA/OLOMlSlMlS/972, and this was crucial for the success of his cases; he deliberately lied to the Court. Insofar as the documentary evidence is uncontroverted, this Honourable Court should make a finding that the Respondents wholly admit the same.
In support of his respective claims, this Honourable Court should find and hold that he has demonstrated sufficient proof that the Respondents have actually committed perjury, through wilful and deliberate falsehoods.
Chapter 1 of the Kenyan Penal Code addresses offences related to the administration of justice. These include perjury, subornation of perjury, malicious information, fabricating or destroying evidence, and conspiracy to defeat justice, among others.
RESPONDENTS SUBMISSIONS
The instant notice of motion is a waste of the Court''s precious time, which moment could have been spent on doing other cases that are deserving than the instant notice of motion, which is incompetent, irregular, and deficient. This application has no direction whatsoever. It is a hopeless application. No suit has been filed by the Applicant herein to warrant the honourable Court to adjudicate the dispute that is herein. The issues raised by the applicant concern a land dispute. This honourable Court has no jurisdiction whatsoever to deal with disputes related to land. The orders requested by the Applicant herein cannot be granted only on an application...
This is the Applicant who has deponed to such averment. He is the deponent of the said supporting affidavit. This is the same Applicant and/or deponent who is saying that he read and understood the contents of the notice of motion. This is incompetence of the highest order that has been shown by the Applicant herein. The Applicant deponed that the 1st Respondent sabotaged the administration of justice on June 30, 2016, by submitting a false affidavit in ELC CASE NO. 190 of 2016 in the Environment and Land Court at Kisii.
This honourable Court cannot make any substantive orders on matters concerning land. This Court lacks the said capacity to make any orders on matters in LC CASE NO.190 of 2016. It is for that reason that it has been indicated herein that the instant notice of motion is an abuse of the due process of the Court. In the Environment and Land Court at Nairobi, ELC Case No. 1180 Of 2014 "Uchanga Investments Versus Habenga Holdings Ltd & 8 Others (O.A. ANGOTE.J).
The issue of abuse of the Court''s due process was discussed in the instant decision. The issues raised by the Applicant herein lack direction. They amount to an abuse of the Court''s due process. The Applicant has indicated in paragraph 3 of the supporting affidavit as follows.
" That I now swear this affidavit of verification of the correctness of the plaint herein and in accordance with Order 4 Rule 1 (2) of the Civil Procedure Rules 2010. Consequently, at paragraph (6) of the said verifying affidavit".
This statement is without any legal direction whatsoever. The Applicant is alluding to facts that cannot be understood or comprehended by anyone. This constitutes an abuse of the Court''s due process. The Applicant has requested the Honourable Court to issue an order of mandamus. The question of mandamus is found in judicial review applications. Judicial review applications in Kenya arise when an administrative action or decision aggrieves a person and they seek to have that action or decision reviewed by the High Court or a subordinate court with jurisdiction.
This typically occurs when the action is deemed unlawful, procedurally unfair, or violates constitutional or statutory provisions. The request for mandamus in the instant application is inappropriate and misconceived. The instant notice of motion is not a judicial review application, and the request for mandamus is legally untenable. See the case of the High Court of Kenya at Nairobi, Judicial Review No. E020 Of 2022 John Makumi Mwangi Versus the Hon. Attorney General & Others (Chigiti, J).
The parameters of mandamus have been described in the said decision. The request for mandamus in the instant application amounts to an abuse of the due process of the Court.
In sum, the Respondents submit.
The instant notice of motion is hopeless, misconceived, and devoid of merit. It does not capture any reasonable cause of action whatsoever, and therefore it should be dismissed with costs to the 1st Respondent.
ISSUES AND DETERMINATION .
Upon perusal of the pleadings and submissions herein, the Court finds the issues are whether the application is an abuse of court process, incompetent, frivolous, and devoid of merit.
The journey of this application can be said to be the least of all to be a false start, which means that a "false start" has two primary meanings: it can refer to a premature action in sports, such as starting a race too early or a football player moving before the snap. It also describes any unsuccessful or hesitant attempt to begin a project or undertaking that requires starting over."
First, he asks the Court to issue an order of mandamus, which, compelling the OCS Kilgoris Police station to arrest and arraign forthwith the respondents herein before the Kilgoris High Court for prosecution of inter alia perjury, subordination of perjury, false swearing, false utterances, including deceitful and false testimonies and statements.
Alternatively, and without prejudice to the other (2) above, this honourable Court be pleased to cite James Olkiyai Serian and Oguttu Mboya, Ochwal & Partners Advocates for perjury and subordination of perjury respectively.
That upon citing James Olkiyai Serian and Oguttu Mboya, Ochwal & Partners Advocates for perjury and subordination of perjury, this honourable Court, be pleased to convict the said James Olikiyai Serian and Oguttu Mboya, Ochwal & Partners Advocates for perjury and subordination of perjury to hold to a fine and a term of imprisonment.
That alternatively to the above orders, the Court to initiate perjury and subordination of perjury proceedings against James Olkiyai Serian and Oguttu Mboya, Ochwal & Partners Advocates by issuing summons requiring James Olkiyai Serian and Oguttu Mboya, Ochwal & Partners Advocates to appear before this Court to answer the charges of perjury and subordination of perjury.
The approach to Court is itself is defective and highly incongruent with the FAIR ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION RULES, 2024 LEGAL NOTICE 165 OF 2024, of which the Objective of the Rules is to provide for the procedure to facilitate the just and expeditious determination of applications for judicial review under the Act.
Rule 8. Place of suing (1) A judicial review application shall, in the first instance, be instituted in the Court of the lowest grade competent to hear and determine the application. Rule 11. Originating motion (1) An application for judicial review shall be by way of an originating motion accompanied by a supporting affidavit.
In Kenya, the Directorate of Criminal Investigations (DCI) conducts criminal investigations. At the same time, the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions (ODPP) is responsible for determining whether to prosecute and for prosecuting criminal cases in Court. The DCI is part of the National Police Service and is responsible for crime detection, apprehension of offenders, and forensic analysis. The ODPP, an independent office established by the Constitution, is headed by the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP), who has the authority to direct investigations, make charging decisions, and represent the state in criminal cases.
Investigation; Directorate of Criminal Investigations (DCI): The DCI is the primary agency for investigating serious crimes in Kenya. Its mandate includes crime detection, prevention, apprehension of offenders, and conducting forensic analysis.
ODPP''s Role in Investigations: The Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) can direct and guide criminal investigations. The DCI is obligated to execute these directions. Prosecution Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions (ODPP):
The ODPP is the national prosecuting authority. It has the exclusive power to institute criminal proceedings against individuals and represent the state in criminal cases.
Charging Decisions: The ODPP is responsible for determining whether to charge offenders. Court Proceedings: The ODPP undertakes public prosecution by preparing and presenting cases in the Court. Nolle Prosequi: The DPP can also discontinue criminal proceedings at any stage before a court delivers a decision.
A private individual or entity can institute a private prosecution. This occurs when a private prosecutor believes that the public authorities, such as the DPP, have failed to act appropriately in prosecuting a crime. What is required to start a private prosecution?
Court Leave: The individual must seek and obtain permission from a magistrate''s Court to conduct the private prosecution.
DPP Notification: The person initiating the private prosecution must notify the Director of Public Prosecutions in writing within 30 days of instituting the proceedings.
DPP Oversight: The DPP has the authority to take over, discontinue, or continue with the private prosecution proceedings at any stage.
When is a private prosecution granted? A court may grant leave for a private prosecution under specific circumstances, such as: Failure of Justice: When there is a clear likelihood of a failure of justice due to inaction by public authorities.
The Applicant should know that the Courts in Kenya, through the Judiciary, are responsible for delivering justice, upholding the rule of law, and protecting the rights and liberties of all people by adjudicating legal disputes, interpreting the Constitution and statutes, and exercising powers granted to each court level, from the Supreme Court down to the Magistrates Court and special tribunals.
Key Functions of the Courts
Judicial Authority and Justice Delivery: The Judiciary exercises judicial authority, delivering justice in line with the Constitution and other laws to resolve disputes and protect the rights and liberties of all people.
Constitutional Interpretation: Courts, particularly the High Court, interpret the Constitution and other laws to resolve disputes and ensure that actions by State organs and individuals align with the Constitution.
Protection of Rights: The courts protect and enforce the rights and liberties of all individuals and ensure public participation in decision-making processes.
Appellate Jurisdiction: The Supreme Court hears appeals from the Court of Appeal, and the High Court hears appeals from the Subordinate Courts.
Advisory Role: The Supreme Court can provide advisory opinions to the national government, State organs, or county governments on matters of law.
Adjudicating Disputes: Courts hear and determine both civil and criminal matters, ensuring a just resolution for all parties.
Supervisory Role: The High Court supervises the functioning of Subordinate Courts and any person or body exercising judicial functions.
Examples of Specific Court Roles
Supreme Court: Holds exclusive original jurisdiction over disputes related to presidential elections, hears appeals from the Court of Appeal, provides advisory opinions, and determines the validity of a declaration of a state of emergency.
High Court: Has unlimited original jurisdiction in all criminal and civil matters, interprets the Constitution, hears cases about the Bill of Rights, and hears appeals from Subordinate Courts.
Magistrates'' Court: The entry point for many cases, handling various civil and criminal matters, including those at special locations such as the Jomo Kenyatta International Airport Court, which deals with airport-related offenses.
Special Tribunals: Courts like Court Martials and Kadhis'' Courts exist for specific matters, with the High Court exercising supervisory jurisdiction over tribunals
The political question doctrine refers to the principle that certain issues are better resolved by the political branches of government rather than the Judiciary. In the Kenyan context, the doctrine has been recognized and applied by the courts in various cases.
In the case of Speaker of the Senate & Another v. Attorney General & Others (2013) case. In this case, the Supreme Court of Kenya applied the political question doctrine. It held that the Court should not interfere with the internal affairs of the Senate, as it is a political institution. The Court emphasized the need for separation of powers and the importance of allowing the political branches to exercise their constitutional functions without undue interference from the Judiciary.
To ask this Court to enter the arena of investigation and prosecution of criminal cases for the various offences the Applicant perceives, and imagines have been committed by the respondents, is tantamount to asking this Court to enter a domain and terrain that is the exclusive preserve of executive agencies mandated by the Constitution.
That would be an intrusion that is not constitutionally allowed. Thus, this Court declines to walk that path; instead, it opts to affirm fidelity to the Constitution by respecting the doctrine of separation of powers.
Ultimately, the Court makes the orders.
The application is baseless and thus frivolous, vexatious, and incompetent; it is therefore struck out with costs to the respondents.
DATED AND DELIVERED THROUGH MICROSOFT TEAMS AT KILGORIS THIS 3RD OCTOBER 2025
CHARLES KARIUKI
JUDGE
'
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT KILGORIS
HIGH COURT MISCELLANEOUS APP NO. E015 OF 2025
(CORAM: HON. CHARLES M. KARIUKI – J)
BETWEEN
NTEEKE KIPUS KIRISWA……………………. ….……………………...APPLICANT
VS
JAMES OLKIYAI SERIANI…………………………………...……1ST RESPONDENT
OGUTTU MBOYA, OCHWAL &
PARTNERS ADVOCATES……………………………………...….2ND RESPONDENT
RULING
BACKGROUND
The Applicant herein filed the instant notice of motion and sought the following orders.
That this application be certified urgent and be heard exparte in the first instance.
That an order of mandamus be and is hereby issued compelling the OCS Kilgoris Police station to arrest and arraign forthwith the respondents herein before the Kilgoris High Court for prosecution of inter alia perjury, subordination of perjury, false swearing, false utterances, including deceitful and false testimonies and statements.
That alternatively and without prejudice to the other (2) above, this honourable Court be pleased to cite James Olkiyai Serian and Oguttu Mboya, Ochwal & Partners Advocates for perjury and subordination of perjury respectively.
That upon citing James Olkiyai Serian and Oguttu Mboya, Ochwal & Partners Advocates for perjury and subordination of perjury, this honourable Court, be pleased to convict the said James Olikiyai Serian and Oguttu Mboya, Ochwal & Partners Advocates for perjury and subordination of perjury to hold to a fine and a term of imprisonment.
That, alternatively to the above orders, this honourable Court to initiate perjury and subordination of perjury proceedings against James Olkiyai Serian and Oguttu Mboya, Ochwal & Partners Advocates by issuing summons requiring James Olkiyai Serian and Oguttu Mboya, Ochwal & Partners Advocates to appear before this honourable Court to answer the charges of perjury and subordination of perjury.
The respondents bear the costs of this application .
Parties were directed to argue the application via submissions:
APPLICANTS SUBMISSIONS :
The 1st and 2nd Respondents should be charged with perjury even after obtaining judgments/rulings and Orders in favour of the 1st Respondent through perjury. Statements given under oath are presumed to be truthful or at least made in good faith. This is why the legal effect of an oath is to subject the person to penalties for perjury if the testimony is found to be false.
The documents annexed to his supporting affidavit dated June 2, 2025, should be forwarded to two institutional entities: the National Registration Bureau in Nairobi and the Document Examiners at DCI Headquarters, to verify who signed the documents—the thumbprints/signatures on the agreements — and who executed them, as well as on which property.
The Court will come to a solid conclusion of the evidence that the 1st Respondent lied under oath to get judgments/rulings and Orders in the suits at the Environment and Land Court at Kilgoris and Kisii with the aid of the 2nd Respondent, who has neither denied nor admitted committing subordination of perjury.
The Land Parcel No. TRANS MARA/OLOMlSlMlS/972, at the centre of this perjury is the proprietary interest in the above parcel of land. "
The 1st Respondent did present evidence to prove that he was the legal and rightful owner of the parcel of land comprised in Title No. TRANS MARA/OLOMlSlMlS/972, and this was crucial for the success of his cases; he deliberately lied to the Court. Insofar as the documentary evidence is uncontroverted, this Honourable Court should make a finding that the Respondents wholly admit the same.
In support of his respective claims, this Honourable Court should find and hold that he has demonstrated sufficient proof that the Respondents have actually committed perjury, through wilful and deliberate falsehoods.
Chapter 1 of the Kenyan Penal Code addresses offences related to the administration of justice. These include perjury, subornation of perjury, malicious information, fabricating or destroying evidence, and conspiracy to defeat justice, among others.
RESPONDENTS SUBMISSIONS
The instant notice of motion is a waste of the Court''s precious time, which moment could have been spent on doing other cases that are deserving than the instant notice of motion, which is incompetent, irregular, and deficient. This application has no direction whatsoever. It is a hopeless application. No suit has been filed by the Applicant herein to warrant the honourable Court to adjudicate the dispute that is herein. The issues raised by the applicant concern a land dispute. This honourable Court has no jurisdiction whatsoever to deal with disputes related to land. The orders requested by the Applicant herein cannot be granted only on an application...
This is the Applicant who has deponed to such averment. He is the deponent of the said supporting affidavit. This is the same Applicant and/or deponent who is saying that he read and understood the contents of the notice of motion. This is incompetence of the highest order that has been shown by the Applicant herein. The Applicant deponed that the 1st Respondent sabotaged the administration of justice on June 30, 2016, by submitting a false affidavit in ELC CASE NO. 190 of 2016 in the Environment and Land Court at Kisii.
This honourable Court cannot make any substantive orders on matters concerning land. This Court lacks the said capacity to make any orders on matters in LC CASE NO.190 of 2016. It is for that reason that it has been indicated herein that the instant notice of motion is an abuse of the due process of the Court. In the Environment and Land Court at Nairobi, ELC Case No. 1180 Of 2014 "Uchanga Investments Versus Habenga Holdings Ltd & 8 Others (O.A. ANGOTE.J).
The issue of abuse of the Court''s due process was discussed in the instant decision. The issues raised by the Applicant herein lack direction. They amount to an abuse of the Court''s due process. The Applicant has indicated in paragraph 3 of the supporting affidavit as follows.
" That I now swear this affidavit of verification of the correctness of the plaint herein and in accordance with Order 4 Rule 1 (2) of the Civil Procedure Rules 2010. Consequently, at paragraph (6) of the said verifying affidavit".
This statement is without any legal direction whatsoever. The Applicant is alluding to facts that cannot be understood or comprehended by anyone. This constitutes an abuse of the Court''s due process. The Applicant has requested the Honourable Court to issue an order of mandamus. The question of mandamus is found in judicial review applications. Judicial review applications in Kenya arise when an administrative action or decision aggrieves a person and they seek to have that action or decision reviewed by the High Court or a subordinate court with jurisdiction.
This typically occurs when the action is deemed unlawful, procedurally unfair, or violates constitutional or statutory provisions. The request for mandamus in the instant application is inappropriate and misconceived. The instant notice of motion is not a judicial review application, and the request for mandamus is legally untenable. See the case of the High Court of Kenya at Nairobi, Judicial Review No. E020 Of 2022 John Makumi Mwangi Versus the Hon. Attorney General & Others (Chigiti, J).
The parameters of mandamus have been described in the said decision. The request for mandamus in the instant application amounts to an abuse of the due process of the Court.
In sum, the Respondents submit.
The instant notice of motion is hopeless, misconceived, and devoid of merit. It does not capture any reasonable cause of action whatsoever, and therefore it should be dismissed with costs to the 1st Respondent.
ISSUES AND DETERMINATION .
Upon perusal of the pleadings and submissions herein, the Court finds the issues are whether the application is an abuse of court process, incompetent, frivolous, and devoid of merit.
The journey of this application can be said to be the least of all to be a false start, which means that a "false start" has two primary meanings: it can refer to a premature action in sports, such as starting a race too early or a football player moving before the snap. It also describes any unsuccessful or hesitant attempt to begin a project or undertaking that requires starting over."
First, he asks the Court to issue an order of mandamus, which, compelling the OCS Kilgoris Police station to arrest and arraign forthwith the respondents herein before the Kilgoris High Court for prosecution of inter alia perjury, subordination of perjury, false swearing, false utterances, including deceitful and false testimonies and statements.
Alternatively, and without prejudice to the other (2) above, this honourable Court be pleased to cite James Olkiyai Serian and Oguttu Mboya, Ochwal & Partners Advocates for perjury and subordination of perjury respectively.
That upon citing James Olkiyai Serian and Oguttu Mboya, Ochwal & Partners Advocates for perjury and subordination of perjury, this honourable Court, be pleased to convict the said James Olikiyai Serian and Oguttu Mboya, Ochwal & Partners Advocates for perjury and subordination of perjury to hold to a fine and a term of imprisonment.
That alternatively to the above orders, the Court to initiate perjury and subordination of perjury proceedings against James Olkiyai Serian and Oguttu Mboya, Ochwal & Partners Advocates by issuing summons requiring James Olkiyai Serian and Oguttu Mboya, Ochwal & Partners Advocates to appear before this Court to answer the charges of perjury and subordination of perjury.
The approach to Court is itself is defective and highly incongruent with the FAIR ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION RULES, 2024 LEGAL NOTICE 165 OF 2024, of which the Objective of the Rules is to provide for the procedure to facilitate the just and expeditious determination of applications for judicial review under the Act.
Rule 8. Place of suing (1) A judicial review application shall, in the first instance, be instituted in the Court of the lowest grade competent to hear and determine the application. Rule 11. Originating motion (1) An application for judicial review shall be by way of an originating motion accompanied by a supporting affidavit.
In Kenya, the Directorate of Criminal Investigations (DCI) conducts criminal investigations. At the same time, the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions (ODPP) is responsible for determining whether to prosecute and for prosecuting criminal cases in Court. The DCI is part of the National Police Service and is responsible for crime detection, apprehension of offenders, and forensic analysis. The ODPP, an independent office established by the Constitution, is headed by the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP), who has the authority to direct investigations, make charging decisions, and represent the state in criminal cases.
Investigation; Directorate of Criminal Investigations (DCI): The DCI is the primary agency for investigating serious crimes in Kenya. Its mandate includes crime detection, prevention, apprehension of offenders, and conducting forensic analysis.
ODPP''s Role in Investigations: The Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) can direct and guide criminal investigations. The DCI is obligated to execute these directions. Prosecution Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions (ODPP):
The ODPP is the national prosecuting authority. It has the exclusive power to institute criminal proceedings against individuals and represent the state in criminal cases.
Charging Decisions: The ODPP is responsible for determining whether to charge offenders. Court Proceedings: The ODPP undertakes public prosecution by preparing and presenting cases in the Court. Nolle Prosequi: The DPP can also discontinue criminal proceedings at any stage before a court delivers a decision.
A private individual or entity can institute a private prosecution. This occurs when a private prosecutor believes that the public authorities, such as the DPP, have failed to act appropriately in prosecuting a crime. What is required to start a private prosecution?
Court Leave: The individual must seek and obtain permission from a magistrate''s Court to conduct the private prosecution.
DPP Notification: The person initiating the private prosecution must notify the Director of Public Prosecutions in writing within 30 days of instituting the proceedings.
DPP Oversight: The DPP has the authority to take over, discontinue, or continue with the private prosecution proceedings at any stage.
When is a private prosecution granted? A court may grant leave for a private prosecution under specific circumstances, such as: Failure of Justice: When there is a clear likelihood of a failure of justice due to inaction by public authorities.
The Applicant should know that the Courts in Kenya, through the Judiciary, are responsible for delivering justice, upholding the rule of law, and protecting the rights and liberties of all people by adjudicating legal disputes, interpreting the Constitution and statutes, and exercising powers granted to each court level, from the Supreme Court down to the Magistrates Court and special tribunals.
Key Functions of the Courts
Judicial Authority and Justice Delivery: The Judiciary exercises judicial authority, delivering justice in line with the Constitution and other laws to resolve disputes and protect the rights and liberties of all people.
Constitutional Interpretation: Courts, particularly the High Court, interpret the Constitution and other laws to resolve disputes and ensure that actions by State organs and individuals align with the Constitution.
Protection of Rights: The courts protect and enforce the rights and liberties of all individuals and ensure public participation in decision-making processes.
Appellate Jurisdiction: The Supreme Court hears appeals from the Court of Appeal, and the High Court hears appeals from the Subordinate Courts.
Advisory Role: The Supreme Court can provide advisory opinions to the national government, State organs, or county governments on matters of law.
Adjudicating Disputes: Courts hear and determine both civil and criminal matters, ensuring a just resolution for all parties.
Supervisory Role: The High Court supervises the functioning of Subordinate Courts and any person or body exercising judicial functions.
Examples of Specific Court Roles
Supreme Court: Holds exclusive original jurisdiction over disputes related to presidential elections, hears appeals from the Court of Appeal, provides advisory opinions, and determines the validity of a declaration of a state of emergency.
High Court: Has unlimited original jurisdiction in all criminal and civil matters, interprets the Constitution, hears cases about the Bill of Rights, and hears appeals from Subordinate Courts.
Magistrates'' Court: The entry point for many cases, handling various civil and criminal matters, including those at special locations such as the Jomo Kenyatta International Airport Court, which deals with airport-related offenses.
Special Tribunals: Courts like Court Martials and Kadhis'' Courts exist for specific matters, with the High Court exercising supervisory jurisdiction over tribunals
The political question doctrine refers to the principle that certain issues are better resolved by the political branches of government rather than the Judiciary. In the Kenyan context, the doctrine has been recognized and applied by the courts in various cases.
In the case of Speaker of the Senate & Another v. Attorney General & Others (2013) case. In this case, the Supreme Court of Kenya applied the political question doctrine. It held that the Court should not interfere with the internal affairs of the Senate, as it is a political institution. The Court emphasized the need for separation of powers and the importance of allowing the political branches to exercise their constitutional functions without undue interference from the Judiciary.
To ask this Court to enter the arena of investigation and prosecution of criminal cases for the various offences the Applicant perceives, and imagines have been committed by the respondents, is tantamount to asking this Court to enter a domain and terrain that is the exclusive preserve of executive agencies mandated by the Constitution.
That would be an intrusion that is not constitutionally allowed. Thus, this Court declines to walk that path; instead, it opts to affirm fidelity to the Constitution by respecting the doctrine of separation of powers.
Ultimately, the Court makes the orders.
The application is baseless and thus frivolous, vexatious, and incompetent; it is therefore struck out with costs to the respondents.
DATED AND DELIVERED THROUGH MICROSOFT TEAMS AT KILGORIS THIS 3RD OCTOBER 2025
CHARLES KARIUKI
JUDGE
'