The Director of Public Productions by way of a Nolle Prosequi dated 22 nd June 2026 sought leave of the court under Article 157 to have the murder charges against the two accused persons terminated.
The DPP has through Mr. Solomon Naulikha SADPP told the court that the prosecution upon review of the evidence available had come to the conclusion that there could not be mounted a prosecution with a realistic prospect of success thus the need for leave to terminate the proceedings. The advocates for the Accused persons as well as the victims did not raise any objection to the move by the DPP. The DPP under Section 82(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code as read with Article 157 (8) if the Constitution may upon giving reasons to the court for his decision to terminate proceedings be granted leave by the court to terminate proceedings. The court ought not to unreasonably decline granting that leave once it is satisfied that the reasons give accord with the interests of the administration of justice and that the decision is reasonable and proportionate taking into account the particular circumstances leading the DPP’s application for leave to terminate the proceedings.
The law envisages under Article 157(10) of the Constitution that the DPP in making the decision to terminate the matter has done so independently thus the court should not unnecessarily fetter the decision of the DPP unless there is good cause to do so.
The National prosecution policy and Article 157(11) of the Constitution prescribe the basic considerations that the DPP should take into account in making the decision whether or not to continue a prosecution.
The DPP must take into account the public interest and run the evidential test on the prosecution docket. The court has no reason to doubt the reasons advanced by the DPP in seeking leaving to terminate the instant case thus the court is inclined to grant the leave sought.
The reasons given appear reasonable, lawful and proper in law. A prosecution must never be undertaken for the sake of it. Once the DPP arrives at the conclusion that he does not have evidence to support the charge, then it would be in the interests of justice to take the course he has taken in this matter.
The court therefore allows the termination of the proceedings under Article 157 (6) (c), (8) of the Constitution as read with Section 82 (1) of the criminal Procedure Code Cap 75 of Laws of Kenya.
The two accused persons Maureen MUTANU KIOKO and MICHAEL OTIENO alias MISES are hereby discharged and shall immediately be set at liberty unless otherwise lawfully held.
It is so ordered.
.
NAIROBI HC CR CASE E 047 OF 2024– Republic –vs- Maureen Mutanu Kioko & Ano. 1
The DPP has through Mr. Solomon Naulikha SADPP told the court that the prosecution upon review of the evidence available had come to the conclusion that there could not be mounted a prosecution with a realistic prospect of success thus the need for leave to terminate the proceedings. The advocates for the Accused persons as well as the victims did not raise any objection to the move by the DPP. The DPP under Section 82(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code as read with Article 157 (8) if the Constitution may upon giving reasons to the court for his decision to terminate proceedings be granted leave by the court to terminate proceedings. The court ought not to unreasonably decline granting that leave once it is satisfied that the reasons give accord with the interests of the administration of justice and that the decision is reasonable and proportionate taking into account the particular circumstances leading the DPP’s application for leave to terminate the proceedings.
The law envisages under Article 157(10) of the Constitution that the DPP in making the decision to terminate the matter has done so independently thus the court should not unnecessarily fetter the decision of the DPP unless there is good cause to do so.
The National prosecution policy and Article 157(11) of the Constitution prescribe the basic considerations that the DPP should take into account in making the decision whether or not to continue a prosecution.
The DPP must take into account the public interest and run the evidential test on the prosecution docket. The court has no reason to doubt the reasons advanced by the DPP in seeking leaving to terminate the instant case thus the court is inclined to grant the leave sought.
The reasons given appear reasonable, lawful and proper in law. A prosecution must never be undertaken for the sake of it. Once the DPP arrives at the conclusion that he does not have evidence to support the charge, then it would be in the interests of justice to take the course he has taken in this matter.
The court therefore allows the termination of the proceedings under Article 157 (6) (c), (8) of the Constitution as read with Section 82 (1) of the criminal Procedure Code Cap 75 of Laws of Kenya.
The two accused persons Maureen MUTANU KIOKO and MICHAEL OTIENO alias MISES are hereby discharged and shall immediately be set at liberty unless otherwise lawfully held.
It is so ordered.
.
NAIROBI HC CR CASE E 047 OF 2024– Republic –vs- Maureen Mutanu Kioko & Ano. 1