Kinyagia v Director of Criminal Investigations (DCI) & 3 others (Petition E600 of 2025) [2026] KEHC 486 (KLR) (Constitutional and Human Rights) (27 January 2026) (Ruling) Neutral citation: [2026] KEHC 486 (KLR) REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT AT NAIROBI (MILIMANI LAW COURTS) CONSTITUTIONAL AND HUMAN RIGHTS PETITION E600 OF 2025 LN MUGAMBI, J JANUARY 27, 2026 BETWEEN NDIANG’UI KINYAGIA ....................................................................... PETITIONER AND THE DIRECTOR OF CRIMINAL INVESTIGATIONS (DCI) . 1ST RESPONDENT THE INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE ............................... 2ND RESPONDENT THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTION ...................... 3RD RESPONDENT THE HON. ATTORNEY GENERAL .......................................... 4TH RESPONDENT RULING 1. The court has heard both sides, the applicant and the respondent. 2. Clearly, there is an admission first by the respondents that the continual holding of the laptop and the mobile phones of the applicant is beyond the time the court order had authorized for purpose of the investigation that the respondents had informed the court they were conducting. 3. Looking at the replying affidavit of Chief Inspector – Nickson Kinyua which was filed in reply to this application, he swore that he was one of the investigators tasked with carrying out this specific inquiry under DCI file No. 190 of 2025 – that aims at investigating alleged offences committed under Computer Misuse and Cyber Crimes Act, No. 5 of 2025. 4. The lower court, in Misc. Milimani E2492 of 2024 allowed the search and extraction contents from the two laptops and two mobile phones specified its order issued on 8th July, 2025. 5. According to the extract of the order which is annexed to the affidavit of Chief Inspector Nickson Kinyua, the gadgets included, Dell laptop serial number DP/N.04W0ONREV https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/486/eng@2026-01-27 1
page 1 of 3
A04, HP Laptop serial number S/NXXXXXXXXXF92, infinix mobile phone IMEI number 354XXXXXXXXX28/354XXXXXXXXX36 and Techno Mobile phone IMEI number 35XXXXXXXXX664/35XXXXXXXXX672 that were seized at the petitioners House at Kinoo. 6. In the order aforesaid, the court specifically stated: “ Whereas it has further been proven before this Hon. Court that for purposes of the said investigations, it is necessary and desirable to issue an order to applicants investigator No. 63590 Sgt Samuel Itegi or any other investigation duly appointed by applicant the access, obtain extract any context in relation to the matter under investigation for Dell laptop serial number DP/N.04W0ONREV A04, HP Laptop serial number S/NXXXXXXXXXF92, infinix mobile phone IMEI number 354XXXXXXXXX28/354XXXXXXXXX36 and Techno Mobile phone IMEI number 35XXXXXXXXX664/35XXXXXXXXX672 seized from the respondent’s house at Kinoo to be forwarded to digital laboratory for extraction of the mentioned contents for the period starting 1st June, 2025 to 21st June, 2025” 7. It is thus, apparent that from the reading of the above court order, which the respondents are relying on to hold on the petitioner’s gadgets, the period specified by the court that authorized the seizure for purposes of that investigation was time bound. 8. If for any reason, the respondents were unable to accomplish the investigation within the three weeks period granted, they ought to have approached the court for the extension of the time, and the court, subject to affording the petitioner a right be heard, could have considered the issue and made a determination on the matter. 9. However, it now emerges that, no such action was taken by the respondents despite the expiry of the authorized period by the court and, almost six months later, the respondents are still withholding said property without any court sanction or order. 10. This is an illegality that this court cannot condone. I would thus order the restoration of the applicants’ property with immediate effect as there is no legal basis for holding it, the respondent having violated the court order that sanctioned the said seizure in the first place. 11. To allow this would be sanctioning impunity and disregard for the authority of the court. 12. I now given further directions as follows: a. 1st, 2nd and 4th respondents granted 7 days to file further affidavit to the petition. b. Petitioner is at liberty to file supporting affidavit together with final/closing submissions within 14 days from date of service. c. Upon service the respondents to file final submissions within 14 days from date of service. d. Rebuttal submissions be filed within 14 days from service of respondents submissions. e. Further directions on 28th April, 2026. DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED VIRTUALLY AT NAIROBI THIS 27TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026. ……………………………… L N MUGAMBI https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/486/eng@2026-01-27 2
page 2 of 3
JUDGE https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/486/eng@2026-01-27 3
page 3 of 3