NAIROBI, Kenya, Mar 2 – The High Court in Nairobi has temporarily stopped the arrest and prosecution of a Nairobi-based doctor and a nurse after they challenged the decision to institute criminal proceedings against them, arguing it was malicious and driven by business rivalry.
In orders issued on February 24, Justice M. Muya certified the matter as urgent and granted conservatory orders restraining the Director of Public Prosecutions, the Inspector General of Police, and the Directorate of Criminal Investigations from arresting, charging, arraigning or prosecuting 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, followed the DPP’s approval of criminal proceedings through a letter dated February 5, 2026. The charges relate to alleged professional negligence in the course of their clinical duties.
In a Certificate of Urgency filed by their advocate, the petitioners argue the decision exposed them to imminent arrest and prosecution and was made without due regard to constitutional safeguards, including the right to fair administrative action and a fair trial.
They contend the investigative and prosecutorial processes fell short of constitutional standards.
he court directed the respondents and an interested party to be served and to file responses within seven days. The matter is scheduled for mention on March 17, 2026, for compliance and further directions.
Meanwhile, through their lawyer Willy Khaminwa, the doctor and nurse are seeking the intervention of their respective professional councils, arguing the bodies under which they are registered have the mandate to protect their members.
heir legal team claims some unqualified operators in the beauty industry who feel threatened by trained dermatologists are allegedly attempting to discredit legitimate medical practitioners.
They argue the criminal complaint is part of a broader campaign to undermine qualified professionals through malicious reports linked to business competition.
The case is expected to reignite debate over the regulation of aesthetic and cosmetic procedures, and the balance between prosecutorial discretion and constitutional protections for medical professionals facing criminal liability in the course of their work.
