Ranju Limited v Director of Public Prosecutions & 5 others

of stealing and handling stolen property, after the applicant lodged a complaint with the Directorate of Criminal Investigations (DCI) and upon its investigations. 3. The applicant is aggrieved by the decision taken by the Director of Public Prosecution (DPP) to withdraw the charges against the 5th and 6th respondents and directing DCI to conduct further investigations into the matter, without involving him or seeking his views. 4. The applicant rst led a notice of motion dated 6th March, 2023, before the Chuka Magistrates Court Criminal Case No. E352 of 2022, challenging the actions of the DPP and seeking to have the orders of withdrawal averted pursuant to Articles 22, 23, 25, 50 and 165 of the Constitution, section 4 of the Victim Protection Act 2014, section 357 of the Criminal Procedure Code and sections 7 and 8 of the Magistrates Act. That application was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction by Hon. Resident Magistrate Oscar W. Kinyua in a ruling rendered on the 31st May, 2023. 5. The applicant then led a notice of motion dated 4th July, 2023 before Chuka High Court (Case No. E001 of 2023), challenging the decision of Hon. Kinyua seeking the following reliefs: an order of certiorari directed at the 1st respondent quashing the decision to withdraw the charges against the 2nd and 3rd Interested Parties; an order of mandamus directed at the 1st respondent compelling them to involve the applicant in the decision by taking his views and awaiting completion of the investigations by the 2nd respondent; an order of mandamus directed to the 2nd respondent to conduct detailed investigations and in particular touching on the areas highlighted in the letter of 23rd December, 2023 by the 1st respondent, and; the ruling of Hon. Oscar Kinyua delivered on the 31st May, 2023 be reviewed by the court with a view to quashing the same. 6. On 5th October, 2024 the High Court dismissed the entire application, stating that it was not properly before the court for, inter alia, being time-barred, and for lack of merit. 7. The applicant then led this appeal (Nyeri COACA E236 of 2024), and the instant notice of motion seeking a stay as stated above. 8. The application was heard through this Court’s virtual platform on the 19th May, 2025. Present at the hearing was Ms. Sophia Nyaga, learned counsel for the applicant, Ms. Kendi, learned counsel for the 2nd and 3rd respondent, Mr. Justus Omollo, learned counsel for the 5th and 6th respondents. The 4th respondent, Mr. Solomon Sitati appeared in person. There was no appearance for the 1st respondent, Hon. the Honourable Attorney General. Ms. Nyaga relied on her submissions dated 14th May, 2025 which she briey highlighted before us. Ms. Kendi for the 2nd and 3rd respondents relied on the replying adavit and written submissions dated 17th May, 2025. She briey highlighted the submissions. The 1st, 4th, 5th and 6th respondents led no submissions. 9. We have given due consideration to the application, together with the supporting adavit, the respondent’s replying adavit, the rival submissions, the authorities relied on, and the applicable law. It is trite that in order to merit a stay of proceedings, an applicant must satisfy the Court that rst, he has an arguable appeal, which means one that raises a bona de point worthy of consideration, though it must not necessarily succeed and; second, that if the stay is not granted the appeal, if successful, would be rendered nugatory. See. Stanely Kang’ethe Kinyanjui vs. Tony Ketter & 5 Others [2013] eKLR. 10. The applicant seeks to stay further proceedings in Chuka Chief Magistrates Criminal Case No. E352 of 2022, pending the hearing and determination of this appeal. Ms. Nyaga urged that the High Court dismissed the Judicial Review (JR) application by the applicant, in which it sought several orders including certiorari and mandamus, meant to avert the action of the DPP to withdraw cases against the 5th and 6th respondents. https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/2026/1905/eng@2026-09-25 2

page 2 of 4

11. Counsel relied on the memorandum of appeal attached to the motion and urged the appeal was arguable for reason; the High Court declared the JR time-barred or being brought outside of the six months stipulated period, based on a miscalculation of the period involved; the Judge erred for nding that the appellant lacked locus standi to bring the JR under section 2 of the Victim Protection Act (VPA) for reason it is a limited liability company, that the nding was per incurium the decision of the High Court Constitutional Petition No. E400 of 2021 (attached) that declared section 2 of the VPA unconstitutional; that the High Court fell into error for failing to nd that the powers of the DPP to withdraw criminal charges under Article 157(11) of the Constitution is not an absolute power. 12. On the nugatory aspect, counsel urged that if the proceedings are allowed to proceed, it may lead to the collapse of the criminal case, if it was later found that the 5th and 6th respondents should have been tried together with the 4th respondent. That the collapse of the case will render its appeal nugatory. 13. Ms. Kendi urged that the appeal was not arguable as the judgment sought to be appealed against emanated from a JR decision that was led outside the statutory six months’ timeline. Further the applicant was seeking to quash the decision of the DPP that was not tenable since it sought to interfere with the powers of the DPP to investigate and prosecute oences under Article 157 of the Constitution. 14. On the arguability of the appeal, the applicant seeks to stay trial proceedings of the magistrate’s court. Yet the order of the High Court, the subject of the appeal before this Court, is a negative order incapable of being stayed. To seek to stay the lower court’s proceedings is in our view, an overreach. 15. As to the applicant’s argument that the decision of the DPP is subject to interference for failure to consult a complainant, no such a requirement is expressly or impliedly provided under Article 157 of the Constitution, the Article under which the DPP derives its powers. We do not see how that argument can be sustainable. 16. On the arguability of the appeal, we fail to nd even a single arguable ground that merits consideration by this Court. 17. On the nugatory aspect, the applicant claims that the criminal case stands to fail if it is allowed to proceed before the issue of the 5th and 6th is resolved. Further that, if investigations were completed and it was determined the 5th and 6th respondents be charged, that could lead to multiplicity of cases. It urged that to avoid weakening the prosecution case, thus rendering the appeal nugatory, the proceedings should be stayed. The applicant has not demonstrated any exceptional circumstances that shows how having the criminal case proceed to hearing in the Magistrates Court may lead to the collapse of the case. In any event, the applicant is not without alternative options. It could le civil action to recover whatever losses it may have suered. 18. It is trite that where the applicant does not satisfy the twin principles the application must fail. See Joseph Gitahi Gachau & Another vs. Pioneer Holdings Ltd & 2 Others [2009] eKLR. 19. We have considered the application and nd that the same has no merit as the applicant did not establish the existence of an arguable case, nor did it satisfy the aspect that the appeal will be rendered nugatory if the orders sought are not granted. The application fails and is dismissed with costs to the respondents. DATED AND DELIVERED IN NYERI THIS 25TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2026. S. OLE KANTAI ………………….…………… JUDGE OF APPEAL https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/2026/1905/eng@2026-09-25 3

page 3 of 4

J. LESIIT ……………………………… JUDGE OF APPEAL ALI – ARONI ………………….…………… JUDGE OF APPEAL I certify that this is a true copy of the original Signed DEPUTY REGISTRAR. https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/2026/1905/eng@2026-09-25 4

page 4 of 4