Republic v Babayao & 12 others (Anti-Corruption and Economic Crimes Case 22 of 2019) [2026] KEMC 47 (KLR)
The bottom line
#The Milimani Anti-Corruption Court refused to release seized employment files because a High Court appeal on the same case must decide that question first.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Forum non conveniens in light of pending appeal
The trial magistrates' court was not the convenient forum; the matter should be placed before the High Court Judge handling the pending appeal
The court noted it was not privy to the factual and evidential scope of the pending appeal and thus could not tell whether the employment files fell within that scope. To protect the integrity of the appeal and avoid judicial embarrassment, and out of abundance of caution, it held the High Court judge seized of the appeal best placed to rule on the necessity or relevancy of the files. It stressed this was a forum non conveniens finding, not a finding of want of jurisdiction.
Consequential mooting of remaining questions
Having struck out the application on forum non conveniens grounds, the court declined to determine jurisdiction, locus standi or merit
The court reasoned that once the application failed the forum non conveniens test, it could not properly proceed to determine the subsequent questions of jurisdiction, locus standi and whether the application merited grant. The Applicants were left free to lodge the dispute at the appropriate forum.
Legal principles established
#- Where an appeal is pending in the High Court, the trial court may decline to determine an application for release of exhibits, deeming the High Court seized of the appeal the more convenient forum
Court orders
#- 1.The Application is struck out.
- 2.The Applicants are at liberty to lodge the dispute at the appropriate forum.
- 3.Each party to bear their own costs.
- 4.The file is marked as closed.
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Sections 121 and 177 of the Criminal Procedure Code invoked by Applicants; not decided as the application was struck out
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Republic v Babayao & 12 others (Anti-Corruption and Economic Crimes Case 22 of 2019) [2026] KEMC 47 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). Milimani Chief Magistrate's Court Anti-Corruption Case No. ACCR/22/2019 (Notice of Motion dated 10th December 2025). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kemc/2026/47/eng@2026-02-27
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.