Sylvia Wambui Karanja v Director of Public Prosecutions & 3 Others [2022] KEHC 11095 (KLR)

Sylvia Wambui Karanja v Director of Public Prosecutions & 3 Others [2022] KEHC 11095 (KLR)
May 31, 2022
Constitutional & Human Rights Law

• Court: High Court of Kenya at Nairobi

• Judge: Hon. Justice H.I. Ong’udi

• Date: 31 May 2022

• Case No.: Petition 186 of 2019

• Outcome: Court found selective and discriminatory prosecution; awarded Kshs. 300,000 in damages. Judicial review orders declined.

Background

Sylvia Wambui Karanja, a director of Bebadis Company Ltd, was charged with forgery in a criminal case filed by her ex-partner and co-director. She alleged that the criminal case arose from a failed personal relationship and business dispute involving a share transfer agreement, which was lawfully executed and commissioned by an advocate.

Arrest and Prosecution

Wambui was arrested in Eldoret, detained for three days, and later charged in Kinangop despite similar ongoing investigations in Nairobi. The DPP’s Nairobi office had advised against the prosecution, citing insufficient evidence. Nonetheless, charges were pressed and only later withdrawn.

Constitutional Violations

The court found that:

• Wambui’s arrest lacked independent investigations.

• She was selectively targeted, while the other two directors were neither investigated nor charged.

• The alleged forgery involved documents lawfully executed with no complainant from the company.

Court’s Findings

1. Discrimination and Dignity Violated:
   Her arrest and prosecution infringed upon Articles 27 and 28 of the Constitution.

2. No Justifiable Grounds:
   The respondents failed to provide reasonable cause or justification for their actions.

3. Judicial Review Orders Declined:
   Though violations were found, the court declined to issue orders barring future prosecution, citing the prosecutorial discretion of the DPP.

Ruling

• General damages of Kshs. 150,000

• Exemplary damages of Kshs. 150,000

• No costs awarded

• Judicial review orders declined

Significance

This case reinforces:

• The importance of independent investigations before prosecution.

• The court’s willingness to compensate for selective and discriminatory legal actions.

• The limits of judicial review over prosecutorial decisions unless clear abuse of power is established.