Milimani magistrate court has struck out an application seeking to obtain search warrants against former CS Raphael Tuju finding that the request lacked sufficient legal basis and failed to disclose an offence attributable to the individual under investigation.
In its ruling, the court noted that the application had been brought under Section 118 of the Criminal Procedure Code, which empowers courts to issue search warrants where there is reasonable suspicion that evidence linked to an offence may be found in a specified location.
However, upon reviewing the application, the supporting affidavit, and the grounds presented, the court found significant gaps in the prosecution’s case.
The magistrate observed that the investigations were anchored on a suspected false report recorded under Occurrence Book (OB) No. 17/22/03/2026.
Crucially, the report in question had been made by a third party and not the respondent, despite the application seeking warrants to search the respondent’s residence for evidence.
The court further noted submissions indicating that Tuju may have also made a separate report at a police station.
However, the application failed to provide details or particulars of that alleged report, leaving the court without sufficient material to assess its relevance or legality.
In its analysis, the court held that the threshold required to issue a search warrant had not been met.
It emphasized that such warrants must be grounded on clear, specific, and credible evidence linking the subject of the application to a suspected offence.
On a balance of probabilities, the court found that the application did not disclose any offence committed by the respondent, particularly the offence of giving false information to a person employed in the public service under Section 129(a) of the Penal Code.
The court concluded that granting the orders sought would amount to an unjustified intrusion into the respondent’s privacy, in the absence of a properly established investigative basis.
“In the circumstances, it is only in the interest of justice that the application be struck out,” the court ruled.
