Veronica Koskei v Director of Criminal Investigations & 1 other

she has endured a lot harassment and visits to her workplace by officers of the 1st Respondent who threatened to arrest her on grounds that she failed to honor court summons. 4. That later in the year 2022 she presented herself before the Eldoret Chief Magistrate’s Court, Court No. 3 vide Eldoret Chief Magistrate’s Court Criminal Case No. E1078 of 2022 in which she was charged. That she was granted a cash bail of Kshs. 20,000/= but the plea was deferred. The Applicant contended that to date she has never taken plea as the same has been deferred severally because her coaccused was yet to present himself but now the plea is set to take place on 12th June 2025. 5. The Applicant further deposed that subsequently the Complainant filed a suit in the Environment and Land Court against her challenging her ownership of the subject parcel of land vide Eldoret ELC Case No. E007 of 2024 wherein she entered appearance and filed her response and the said suit which is pending hearing and determination before the ELC Court. 6. The Applicant maintained that the issues raised in the said suit touch on ownership of the suit land and relate to the charges she is facing in Eldoret Chief Magistrate Criminal Case No. E1078 of 2022. It is therefore the Applicant’s contention that it will be unfair for her to be charged over issues stemming from the ownership of the said land when the said issue is yet to be determined by the relevant Court and further that if the lower Court was to determine the same issue then it would amount to double jeopardy as the same issue will be determined by two separate Courts and may be with conflicting conclusions. Replying Affidavit 7. The Application is opposed by the 2nd Respondent vide the Replying Affidavit sworn by Prosecution Counsel, S.G. Thuo on 24th June 2025. He deposed that the entire Application is ambiguous, bad in law and premised on assumptions as nothing in the entire application has been annexed to suggest that the 2nd Respondent acted ultra vires in making the decision to charge the Applicant having been satisfied that the evidentiary and threshold tests were met before arraigning her in Court. 8. He deposed that the 2nd Respondent is apprehensive that this Application is well calculated to stifle ongoing successful investigations and prosecution into criminal aspects involving land parcel number Uasin Gishu/Kahungura/396. 9. He further deposed that the reliefs sought herein are premised on mere feelings of being inconvenienced by investigations and potential prosecution without cogent proof of violation, infringement or contravention of any of the Applicants Constitutional rights thus this application ought to be dismissed as the Court is being led to act on mere apprehension rather than tangible evidence. 10. He urged that civil proceedings per se do not act as a bar to criminal prosecution as the two belong to different legal positions and this Honorable Court of record must be swayed into believing otherwise without proper basis as is in the present matter. Supplementary Affidavit 11. The 2nd Respondent also filed a Supplementary Affidavit sworn by Prosecution Counsel, S.G. Thuo on 9th July 2025. He deposed that the Applicant herein has unsuccessfully filed stay of proceedings seeking to stop the prosecution of Eldoret CMCR E1078 of 2022, before a different High Court in Eldoret. He stated that Eldoret HCPET No. E002 of 2023, Tom Mainja Chepkewesi vs. The Inspector general of Police and 2 Others is an exact replica of the current application for stay of prosecution of Eldoret CMCR No. E1078 of 2022. He contended that the Applicant herein is seeking conflicting decisions https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/10173/eng@2026-07-09 2

page 2 of 3

from cognate Courts to embarrass the judicial system by filing separate applications by separate accused persons in Eldoret CMCR No. E1078 of 2022. Determination 12. At the close of pleadings, even as Counsel for the Applicant stated that he had filed his submissions, none was traced in the court file. The court will therefore base its determination on the facts deposed in the Affidavits of the parties, the proceedings of the court and of course the law. 13. Having carefully considered the application as well as the rival affidavits, compelling assertions have been made by the Counsel for the State and further buttressed by the facts deposed in the Supplementary Affidavit dated 9th July 2025 that a similar application raising similar issues was already heard and determined by the Hon Justice R. Nyakundi in HCCRA No. E002/2023 wherein an Application for orders of Certiorari seeking to quash the ODPPs decision to charge the Applicant in Eldoret CMCR No. E1078 of 2022 was dismissed on 23rd December 2024 and that another application seeking similar orders was filed before Hon Justice Wananda J. 14. This assertion has not been rebutted, controverted and/or denied by the Applicant, I therefore see no reason to belabor this matter for reasons that similar issues involving the same party were already canvassed before Hon Mr. Justice R. Nyakundi and dismissed. This Application is therefore not only res judicata but this court being a court of concurrent jurisdiction with the Hon Nyakuni J is also functus officio. Accordingly, the court finds that the Application is devoid of merit and it is now hereby dismissed in its entirety. READ DATED AND SIGNED VIRTUALLY AT BUNGOMA ON 9TH JULY 2026 E. OMINDE JUDGE https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/10173/eng@2026-07-09 3

page 3 of 3