Jeniffer v Equity Bank of Kenya Limited & another (Environment and Land Case E028 of 2024) [2025] KEELC 5740 (KLR)
The bottom line
#What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Questions the Court framed
#The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.
- 1.Whether the court is seized of the requisite jurisdiction to direct (command) the Directorate of Criminal Investigations to subject the documents in question to forensic document examination
- 2.Whether the orders sought are tantamount to usurping the powers of the Directorate of Criminal Investigations
- 3.Whether the applicant has satisfied the statutory threshold provided for under the Access to Information Act (2016)
- 4.Whether the court can be deployed as an investigating forum to procure a report for the purpose of proving the applicant's case
Key legal issues
#Jurisdiction to direct the DCI
The court lacks jurisdiction to command the DCI to conduct forensic document examinations
The DCI is established under section 28 of the National Police Service Act and is under the command of the Inspector-General, who exercises independent command under Article 245(2) of the Constitution. Article 245(4) bars any person from directing the Inspector-General on the investigation of any particular offence, and Article 249(2) insulates independent offices from direction or control. Orders against the DCI would therefore be unconstitutional. Relying on the Supreme Court's decision in Dande, courts may only interfere where constitutional and statutory limits are breached.
Usurpation of police powers
The orders sought would amount to the court usurping the DCI's investigative mandate
Any person may lodge a criminal complaint with the Inspector-General or DCI under sections 49 and 55 of the National Police Service Act, and the police may then summon suspects and take custody of documents. But no complaint had been lodged here. The applicant sought to use the court to procure investigations without invoking the proper channel, which is antithetical to the constitutional allocation of functions.
Compliance with the Access to Information Act, 2016
The applicant did not satisfy the statutory threshold for procuring documents or information
Under the Act, an applicant must first write to the designated person, afford that body reasonable latitude, and only then approach the court upon refusal. The right of access to information is not absolute and is limited by section 6. Applying the Supreme Court's parameters in Dande, the applicant failed to establish a demonstrable link between the rights asserted and the documents sought; documents do not issue for the mere asking.
The court as an investigating forum in an adversarial system
The court cannot be used to obtain a forensic report to prove a party's case
The court is an impartial arbiter and must not descend into the arena or assist a party to build its war-chest. Directing the DCI to prepare and file a report would be a prelude to deploying the DCI as the applicant's witness, contrary to fair hearing, fair trial and due process. The Court of Appeal in Stanley Mombo Amuti confirms that a party bears sole responsibility for presenting its case and choosing witnesses.
Legal principles established
#- The court has no jurisdiction to command or direct the DCI to undertake forensic examination of documents, as such orders would contravene Articles 245(4)(a) and 249(2) of the Constitution
- A party seeking information or documents held by a state organ must satisfy the statutory threshold under the Access to Information Act, first by applying to the designated person, and must particularise the right sought to be protected
- In an adversarial system, the court must not make orders assisting one party to obtain evidence or build its case
Court orders
#- 1.The Application be and is hereby Dismissed
- 2.No orders as to costs
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Not expressly invoked; the court considered the limits of its jurisdiction under Articles 245(4)(a) and 249(2) of the Constitution, 2010
Relief refused
#Order directing the DCI to subject eight listed documents to forensic document examination by a Government examiner
The court lacks jurisdiction to command the DCI, which is insulated from directions by Articles 245(4)(a) and 249(2) of the Constitution
Order compelling the 1st Defendant to release original documents to the DCI for investigation
Such orders would make the court usurp the functions of the National Police Service
Order requiring the DCI to prepare and file an investigation report within 60 days
The court cannot be deployed to assist a party to build its case in an adversarial system
Costs
No orders as to costs.
Quotable passages
#Verbatim from the judgment, each located to the page it appears on in the official PDF — so these can be cited and checked directly.
this court is not seized of the requisite jurisdiction to command, direct and or order the Directorate of Criminal Investigations [DCI] to undertake the forensic examination of the impugned documents
the applicant is enjoined to particularize the right that is sought to be protected via the information sought and thereafter demonstrate how the information [document] is intended to be deployed in the protection of that right
the applicant is essentially seeking to ride on the court to get a forensic document examination report
i. The Application be and is hereby Dismissed. ii. No orders as to costs.
Issues in the judgment
#The case number of the suit in which the application was filed is not stated anywhere in the judgment
The judgment does not name the 2nd defendant/respondent, though the supporting affidavit alleges forgery by that party
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Jeniffer v Equity Bank of Kenya Limited & another (Environment and Land Case E028 of 2024) [2025] KEELC 5740 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in the judgment (Notice of Motion dated 21st July 2025). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/5740/eng@2025-07-28
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.