By Andrew Kariuki
The High Court in Nairobi has issued temporary orders blocking the arrest and prosecution of a Nairobi-based doctor and a nurse who have challenged the decision to institute criminal proceedings against them, claiming the move is malicious and driven by business rivalry.
In orders delivered on February 24, 2026, Justice M. Muya certified the matter as urgent and granted conservatory relief, restraining the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP), the Inspector General of Police, and the Directorate of Criminal Investigations (DCI) from arresting, charging, or prosecuting Dr. Jane Njeri Kamau and Vivian Masaai Chebef pending the hearing and determination of their application.
The case, filed as Petition No. E007 of 2026 before the High Court’s Criminal Division, stems from a decision by the DPP, communicated in a letter dated February 5, 2026, approving criminal charges related to alleged professional negligence arising from their medical practice.
Through a certificate of urgency filed by their advocate, the petitioners argue that the intended prosecution violates their constitutional rights, including the right to fair administrative action and a fair trial. They contend that the investigative and prosecutorial processes leading to the charges were flawed and failed to meet constitutional thresholds.
The court directed the respondents, together with an interested party, to file their responses within seven days. The matter is scheduled for mention on March 17, 2026, for further directions and compliance.
Separately, the doctor and nurse, represented by senior counsel, have moved to seek the intervention of their respective professional regulatory bodies, arguing that the councils under which they are registered have the mandate to safeguard the interests and integrity of licensed practitioners.
Their legal team has attributed the criminal complaint to alleged hostility within the beauty and cosmetic industry, claiming that trained dermatology professionals are increasingly being targeted by unqualified operators who feel threatened by their presence.
According to the defence, such individuals are resorting to “any means possible” to tarnish the reputation of legitimate practitioners, with the current case forming part of what they describe as a broader pattern of malicious complaints fueled by commercial competition.
