Magon & another v Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions & 2 others (Judicial Review 1 of 2023) [2024] KEELC 6498 (KLR)
The bottom line
#The High Court allowed Trikuti Investments to challenge prosecution directives, but refused to halt any criminal proceedings in the meantime.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the Applicants should be granted leave to apply for judicial review orders of certiorari and prohibition
Leave granted. The Applicants demonstrated locus standi and an arguable case against a public body's decision; the limitation bar did not apply because the impugned recommendations were inter partes letters, not formal orders.
The court applied the low arguability threshold for leave, noting the Applicants challenge a decision of the ODPP, a statutory public body, and are adversely affected by it. On limitation, following Amica Business Solutions, the six-month window in Order 53 Rule 2 covers only formal decisions capable of dissemination, not private letters between respondents of which the Applicants had no notice.
Whether the leave granted should operate as a stay of anticipated criminal proceedings
Leave granted but directed not to operate as a stay.
The court distinguished the low leave threshold from the high stay threshold, which requires irreparable harm or serious abuse of power. The Applicants failed to show abuse of process or prejudice, and the law permits criminal and civil proceedings to run in parallel. In two years, no criminal proceedings were shown to have been instituted.
Legal principles established
#- The six-month limitation period under Order 53 Rules 2 and 7 applies only to formal decisions, judgments, orders, decrees or proceedings, not to inter partes letters or recommendations of which the applicant had no notice.
- The standard for leave to apply for judicial review is low - only an arguable case need be shown - whereas the standard for leave to operate as stay is high.
- Criminal process may continue side by side with civil proceedings.
- Judicial review under the 2010 Constitution is both an administrative law remedy and a constitutional fundamental right, and applicants may choose the Law Reform Act/Order 53 route (requiring leave) or the constitutional/Fair Administrative Actions Act route (not requiring leave).
Court orders
#- 1.Leave granted to the Applicants to apply for orders of certiorari to quash the directions and recommendations of the 2nd and 3rd Respondents dated 29th July 2020 and 22nd January 2021
- 2.Leave granted to the Applicants to apply for orders of certiorari to quash the directions and recommendations of the 1st Respondent dated 2nd April 2020, 14th May 2020, 21st May 2020 and 25th March 2020
- 3.Leave granted to the Applicants to apply for an order of prohibition against arrest, charging and prosecution pending determination of Milimani HC ELC Case No. 1532 of 2013
- 4.Leave shall not operate as stay
- 5.The Notice of Motion to be filed within 21 days
- 6.Costs of this application to be in the cause
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Order 53 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules, Sections 8, 9, 10 & 11 of the Fair Administrative Actions Act, Sections 8 and 9 of the Law Reform Act, Articles 22, 23 & 47 of the Constitution of Kenya 2010
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Magon & another v Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions & 2 others (Judicial Review 1 of 2023) [2024] KEELC 6498 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2024). Chamber Summons application dated 11th November 2022. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2024/6498/eng@2024-10-03
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.