Written By Andrew Kariuki
The High Court has frozen a petition filed by Wa-Iria Mwangi and several others challenging ongoing investigations and prosecution relating to an anti-corruption case in Murang’a County, after finding that the application before it was sub judice and amounted to an abuse of court process.
The petitioners had moved to the High Court through a petition dated June 2, 2025 together with a Notice of Motion dated April 27, 2025, seeking twenty orders, including conservatory orders to halt proceedings in Milimani Chief Magistrate’s Anti-Corruption Case and to stop the Ethics and Anti-Corruption Commission from conducting further investigations into the procurement process under scrutiny.
The court had previously issued interim orders on September 16, 2025 staying the lower court proceedings.
Before the petitioners’ application could be heard, the Public Procurement Regulatory Authority, the 1st respondent, filed a Notice of Motion dated July 10, 2025 seeking to strike out the petitioners’ application on the basis that it was sub judice.
The respondent argued that the 6th, 7th and 8th petitioners were already parties in Milimani High Court Constitutional Petition, where an application seeking to freeze proceedings in the same anti-corruption criminal case was pending before Justice E.C. Mwita.
The court record shows that the petitioners did not disclose the existence of the earlier petition.
During the proceedings, the High Court also expunged the petitioners’ supplementary affidavit dated July 10, 2025 and filed on September 16, 2025 on grounds that it had been filed without leave and in violation of filing procedures.
In analysing whether the April 27, 2025 application was sub judice the application filed on March 14, 2025, the court found that both applications sought identical reliefs, specifically the stay of proceedings in Anti-Corruption Case No. E012 of 2024.
The court held that the duplication was deliberate, terming the filing of the second application without disclosure of the first petition a “shameless act of forum shopping” and a clear abuse of the court process.
Citing established jurisprudence on the sub judice doctrine, the court held that the latter application could not proceed while a similar one was already pending before a court of competent jurisdiction.
Although the court noted that the proper remedy under sub judice is generally to stay the latter suit rather than strike it out, it found that the conduct of the petitioners in filing parallel proceedings and concealing material information required the strongest sanction available within the doctrine. The court therefore stayed both the application dated April 27, 2025 and the petition dated June 2, 2025 for a period not exceeding three months pending the hearing and determination of Milimani High Court Constitutional Petition No. E209 of 2024.
The judge directed that the matter be mentioned on a date to be fixed after delivery of the ruling, at which point the petitioners must indicate how they intend to proceed, failing which the petition will stand struck out for being an abuse of court process.
Costs of the application dated July 10, 2025 were awarded to the 1st respondent.
The ruling was dated, signed and delivered at The Milimani Law Courts on November 14, 2025 by Justice B.M. Musyoki of the High Court.
