NAIROBI, Kenya, Jun 2 – The Milimani Chief Magistrate’s Court has rejected an application by the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) seeking to terminate a Sh356.7 million theft case against a company director, ruling that the request was not sufficiently justified in law.
Chief Magistrate Rose Ndombi directed that the criminal proceedings against Honey Khatwani, a director of Oki General Trading Limited, will proceed to full hearing.
Khatwani is accused of stealing Sh356,711,174.40 from the company, allegedly obtained while he served as a director in a position of trust. The alleged offences are said to have occurred between January 2020 and June 2024 in Baba Dogo, Ruaraka Constituency. He has denied all charges.
The prosecution had moved the court under Section 87(a) of the Criminal Procedure Code, seeking to withdraw the case on grounds that the matter was linked to an ongoing civil dispute and that parties had attempted to resolve it through a settlement agreement.
However, the court dismissed the application, holding that the existence of a civil case alone cannot justify the termination of criminal proceedings.
“The existence of a civil suit does not by itself justify termination of the proceedings,” the magistrate ruled, citing Section 193A of the Criminal Procedure Code, which allows civil and criminal cases to run concurrently.
The court further emphasized that although the DPP has constitutional authority to withdraw cases, such discretion is subject to judicial oversight and must be exercised in line with the interests of justice and the prevention of abuse of court process.
Magistrate Ndombi noted that court approval is a legal safeguard and not a procedural formality, particularly in cases involving serious financial allegations.
A key issue in the ruling was the prosecution’s position that withdrawal of the case was conditional upon the refund of the allegedly stolen funds.
However, the complainant informed the court that no refund had been made and that the accused had not complied with the alleged settlement terms.
The magistrate held that allowing withdrawal under such conditions would be improper and contrary to the interests of justice.
“If the court were to allow withdrawal under such a constraint, it would effectively sanction the benefit of a settlement process before the performance of the very condition upon which the withdrawal is based,” she stated.
Finding that the DPP had failed to demonstrate sufficient grounds, the court dismissed the application and ordered that the criminal trial proceed as scheduled.
