Director of Public Prosecution v Daniele Lo Coco & 8 others
The bottom line
#Kenya's Court of Appeal ruled that courts cannot stop criminal investigations or prosecutions just because there's a related civil dispute.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the High Court properly stayed ongoing criminal proceedings pending determination of the constitutional petition
The Judge misdirected herself; there was no material showing the prosecution was patently unlawful, oppressive or an abuse of process warranting a stay.
The Court invoked the settled principles for conservatory orders and the Dande authority that stays of criminal proceedings are sparingly granted. Parallel civil disputes do not bar criminal proceedings, as confirmed by section 193A of the Criminal Procedure Code and Kuria v AG. Nothing on record demonstrated malice or abuse; the stay prematurely arrested an ongoing criminal process before a court of competent jurisdiction.
Whether the blanket prohibition on further criminal investigations was lawful
It was not; the order effectively conferred immunity from investigations and interfered with the constitutional functions of the National Police Service and the DPP.
The Court traced the investigative mandate of the DCI under Articles 239, 243 and 245 of the Constitution and sections 24 and 35 of the National Police Service Act, and authorities requiring ulterior motive or abuse before intervention. The impugned orders were broad, far-reaching and indeterminate, precluding investigation of even future complaints, going beyond preserving the substratum of the Petition.
Whether the 2nd Ruling could properly reverse the trial court's passport-deposit orders without calling for the lower court file
The Judge failed to lay any basis for reversing the trial court's orders and misdirected herself in the exercise of discretion.
The record showed the trial court had, after a reasoned ruling on 20th November 2024, vacated earlier orders delegating travel approval to the DCI. The 1st Ruling did not address passport deposit at all, so no basis supported the reversal. Applying Mbogo v Shah, Price v Hilder and Apungu Arthur Kibira, the appellate court was entitled to interfere since the Judge failed to consider relevant matters and arrived at a wrong decision.
Legal principles established
#- Courts should not intervene in criminal investigations and prosecutions absent clear evidence of illegality, malice, or abuse of process; parallel civil disputes do not bar criminal proceedings.
- An order for stay of criminal proceedings is granted only in exceptional circumstances upon sparing exercise of judicial discretion.
- Conservatory relief in constitutional proceedings requires a prima facie case with likelihood of success, the substratum of the petition being rendered nugatory, and public interest favouring the relief.
- Blanket orders prohibiting future investigations into matters that may arise are impermissible; they exceed preserving the substratum of a petition.
- An appellate court will only interfere with a discretionary decision where the judge misdirected himself, acted on wrong matters or failed to consider relevant ones, and arrived at a wrong decision causing injustice.
Court orders
#- 1.The Ruling dated 29th August 2024 (1st Ruling) is set aside.
- 2.The Ruling dated 25th April 2025 (2nd Ruling) is set aside.
- 3.Costs to the 1st and 4th to 10th Respondents.
- On appeal from
- High Court of Kenya at Malindi
- Constitutional Petition No. E006 of 2024
- Jurisdiction invoked
- First appeal to the Court of Appeal against High Court rulings in a constitutional petition
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Director of Public Prosecution v Daniele Lo Coco & 8 others", Case Analysis (2026). Court of Appeal, Malindi (delivered at Mombasa) - appeal against High Court Constitutional Petition No. E006 of 2024 rulings. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/2026/928/eng@2026-05-15
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.