In a ruling delivered on Wednesday, March 25, 2026, Milimani Principal Magistrate Daisy Mutai struck out the application, citing insufficient legal grounds and lack of clarity in the investigations being pursued by the detectives.
The DCI had filed a notice of motion on March 24, requesting the court to authorize Officer Francis Gitau or any designated officer to access Tuju’s home along Mwitu Road in Karen.
The agency intended to extract unedited CCTV footage covering the period between March 21 at 5:00 p.m. and March 23 at 2:00 p.m.
Additionally, the investigators sought orders compelling Tuju to grant them entry into his premises to facilitate the retrieval of the footage, which they argued was crucial to ongoing investigations.
However, in her ruling, Magistrate Mutai raised concerns over the basis of the application. She noted that the investigations were anchored on a suspected false report recorded under Occurrence Book (OB) number 17/22/03/2026.
Additionally, the investigators sought orders compelling Tuju to grant them entry into his premises to facilitate the retrieval of the footage, which they argued was crucial to ongoing investigations.
However, in her ruling, Magistrate Mutai raised concerns over the basis of the application. She noted that the investigations were anchored on a suspected false report recorded under Occurrence Book (OB) number 17/22/03/2026.
Crucially, the report in question was not made by Tuju himself but by a third party, yet the orders sought directly targeted him.
“The court has been informed that the report was made by a person other than the respondent, and yet the application seeks warrants against him,” Mutai stated.
She further pointed out inconsistencies in the application, noting that while there were claims of another suspected false report allegedly made by Tuju, the details were not clearly outlined to support the request for warrants.
The magistrate also faulted the DCI for failing to specify the exact offence under investigation. She emphasized that the application did not demonstrate that Tuju was being investigated for giving false information to a public officer, an offence outlined under Section 129(a) of the Penal Code.
“In the absence of a clearly disclosed offence, the court finds no sufficient basis to grant the orders sought,” she ruled.
Consequently, the court struck out the application in its entirety, with no orders as to costs.
The decision marks a legal setback for the DCI in its attempt to gather evidence linked to the case, while also raising broader questions about the threshold required for investigators to access private surveillance data.
The ruling underscores the judiciary’s role in safeguarding individual rights against intrusive investigations that lack firm legal grounding.
“The court has been informed that the report was made by a person other than the respondent, and yet the application seeks warrants against him,” Mutai stated.
She further pointed out inconsistencies in the application, noting that while there were claims of another suspected false report allegedly made by Tuju, the details were not clearly outlined to support the request for warrants.
The magistrate also faulted the DCI for failing to specify the exact offence under investigation. She emphasized that the application did not demonstrate that Tuju was being investigated for giving false information to a public officer, an offence outlined under Section 129(a) of the Penal Code.
“In the absence of a clearly disclosed offence, the court finds no sufficient basis to grant the orders sought,” she ruled.
Consequently, the court struck out the application in its entirety, with no orders as to costs.
The decision marks a legal setback for the DCI in its attempt to gather evidence linked to the case, while also raising broader questions about the threshold required for investigators to access private surveillance data.
The ruling underscores the judiciary’s role in safeguarding individual rights against intrusive investigations that lack firm legal grounding.
0 Comments