Muiruri v Director of Public Prosecutions & 2 others; Joinas Sacco Society Limited (Interested Party) (Criminal Miscellaneous Application E093 of 2025) [2025] KEHC 19271 (KLR) (23 October 2025) (Ruling) Neutral citation: [2025] KEHC 19271 (KLR) REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT AT KIAMBU CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION E093 OF 2025 DO CHEPKWONY, J OCTOBER 23, 2025 BETWEEN MONICAH WANJIKU MUIRURI ........................................................ APPLICANT AND DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS .............................. 1ST RESPONDENT DIRECTOR OF CRIMINAL INVESTIGATIONS .................... 2ND RESPONDENT INSPECTOR GENEREAL OF POLICE ...................................... 3RD RESPONDENT AND JOINAS SACCO SOCIETY LIMITED ................................... INTERESTED PARTY RULING 1. The Applicant filed Notice of Motion application dated 12th September, 2025 under Certificate of Urgency seeking the following orders:a. Spent. b. Spent. c. That the Applicant be admitted to anticipatory bail on such terms and conditions as the court may deem reasonable in the circumstances pending any contemplated arrest or charge by the Respondents and/or their agents and/or any other person or persons that may be so instructed by them to undertake any such arrest. d. A conservatory order restraining the Respondents from harassing, intimidating, threatening or in any manner violating the Applicant’s right to liberty, dignity, security of the person, privacy, fair administrative action and fair trial in the course of investigations. https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2025/19271/eng@2025-10-23 1
page 1 of 3
e. That should the 1st Respondent determine to prefer charges; the Applicant be served with 48 hours’ Notice to present herself for plea and be released on the same anticipatory terms pending plea unless varied by the court. f. That the Honourable Court be pleased to issue such orders as will be just and proper for the protection of the applicant’s fundamental rights and freedoms. g. That the costs of this application be provided for. 2. The Application is based on the grounds as set out on its face and the Affidavit in support of the Applicant. The Applicant holds that she was employed by the Interested Party but was dismissed in October, 2020 over allegations of cash-count shortages which she acknowledged while in employment and has been paying for the same. That in August, 2025, she was called by a Police Officer from the office of the 2nd Respondent and was summoned for interrogations which she holds is harassment and intimidation owing to the fact that she admitted the ofience and has been repaying the monies. She has sought the court’s intervention. 3. On 16th September, 2025, this Court granted the Applicant exparte orders of anticipatory bail on personal recognizance with directions that he reports to the nearest DCI’s office whenever called upon or summons to attend, pending the interparties hearing. 4. When this matter came up for interpartes hearing, the Applicant’s Counsel informed the court that the Respondents and Interested Party had not filed any response to the application and urged that the same be allowed as prayed. 5. The Respondents’ Counsel stated that they were conceding to prayers No.(2), (3) and (5) being granted on condition that the Applicant cooperates with the investigating agency. On their part, the Respondent’s counsel undertakes to serve the Applicant with forty-eight (48) hours Notice in the event a decision to charge is reached. 6. The Interested Party’s Counsel informed the court that it had filed a Replying Affidavit on 26th September, 2025 but due to an oversight the same was not served upon the Applicant. Counsel for the Interested Party also stated they would rely on the sentiments of the Respondents’ Counsel and urged that the court grants the orders sought as they are fair and just. 7. Having read through the Notice of Motion application and having heard the Counsel for all the parties, the court considers the application as unopposed since the Respondents and Interested Party have conceded to the prayers No.(2), (3) and (5) of the application on condition that the Applicant cooperates with the Investigation Agency as they undertake to serve the Applicant with a forty-eight (48) hours Notice in the event a decision is reached. In the circumstances, the Notice of Motion application is allowed with the following orders issuing:a. The Applicant be and is hereby granted free Anticipatory Bail in the sum of Kshs.100,000/= pending the contemplated arrest or charge by the Respondents on condition that she complies with all official Summons issued by the Respondents. b. A conservatory order is hereby issued restraining the Respondents whether acting jointly or severally by themselves or their servants, agents, representatives or howsoever otherwise from interfering with the Applicant person, harassing her, intimidating her, threatening her, without conducting investigations and according to her an opportunity to be heard to wit issuing with her Summons with a forty-eight (48) hours’ Notice for her to appear at any offices to record statement(s), if need be. https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2025/19271/eng@2025-10-23 2
page 2 of 3
c. That in the event, the 1st Respondent determine to prefer charges, the Applicant should be served with forty-eight (48) hours’ Notice to present herself for plea and condition for bond to be determined by the court before which she will have been arraigned for plea-taking. It is so ordered. RULING DELIVERED VIRTUALLY, DATED AND SIGNED AT KIAMBU THIS 23 RD DAY OF OCTOBER , 2025. D. O. CHEPKWONY JUDGE https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2025/19271/eng@2025-10-23 3
page 3 of 3