Jeniffer v Equity Bank of Kenya Limited & another (Environment and Land Case E028 of 2024) [2025] KEELC 5740 (KLR)

The DCI is established under section 28 of the National Police Service Act and is under the command of the Inspector-General, who exercises independent command under Article 245(2) of the Constitution. Article 245(4) bars any person from directing the Inspector-General on the investigation of any particular offence, and Article 249(2) insulates independent offices from direction or control. Orders against the DCI would therefore be unconstitutional. Relying on the Supreme Court's decision in Dande, courts may only interfere where constitutional and statutory limits are breached.

Any person may lodge a criminal complaint with the Inspector-General or DCI under sections 49 and 55 of the National Police Service Act, and the police may then summon suspects and take custody of documents. But no complaint had been lodged here. The applicant sought to use the court to procure investigations without invoking the proper channel, which is antithetical to the constitutional allocation of functions.

Under the Act, an applicant must first write to the designated person, afford that body reasonable latitude, and only then approach the court upon refusal. The right of access to information is not absolute and is limited by section 6. Applying the Supreme Court's parameters in Dande, the applicant failed to establish a demonstrable link between the rights asserted and the documents sought; documents do not issue for the mere asking.

The court is an impartial arbiter and must not descend into the arena or assist a party to build its war-chest. Directing the DCI to prepare and file a report would be a prelude to deploying the DCI as the applicant's witness, contrary to fair hearing, fair trial and due process. The Court of Appeal in Stanley Mombo Amuti confirms that a party bears sole responsibility for presenting its case and choosing witnesses.