Businessman challenges his intended prosecution

A businessman has filed a constitutional petition challenging his intended prosecution at a magistrate’s court in relation to a succession dispute.

Mr Joginder Singh Dhanjal claims that the Director of Criminal Investigations (DCI) and the Office of Director of Public Prosecutions (ODPP) want to charge him with the offence of intermeddling as the matter relates to the estate of his late father in a succession case.

The businessman says that in the succession case he is a co-administrator with his sister.

He further says that the succession case has been the subject of heated, lengthy and convoluted litigation since 2006 and a grant of letter of administration issued, set aside, consent entered, a fresh grant issued and has again been challenged.

Mr Dhanjal who says that he is sickly argues that the succession court granted him time to seek specialized medical attention outside the country due to his (medical) conditions, but the respondent has now issued him with summons to appear in court for plea taking.

The petitioner claims that in alleging that he has not properly managed the estate yet the succession case is still ongoing where the court has even opined that parties ought to reconcile, the DCI and ODPP have unfairly targeted and subjected him to torture and ridicule.

“Even assuming that the petitioner is innocent until proven guilty, the allegations against him are unclear and irrelevant as the succession matter is still ongoing,” part of the petition by Mr Dhanjal states.

Mr Dhanjal wants a declaration issued that his intended prosecution in a criminal case filed at the magistrate’s court in Mombasa or in any other criminal cases relating to matters succession is unfair, ill-motivated, unconstitutional and shall offend the Bill of Rights.

The petitioner argues that the DCI and the ODPP should have also recommended reconciliation and wait for the succession court to issue a judgement on the issues rather than rushing to prosecute a purely family matter.

“By the fact that the petitioner is being victimised and discriminated, it means the second respondent (ODPP) would be reduced to grotesque arena of mob justice against innocent and well-meaning members of the public or administrator in private family matters,” the petitioner argues.

Mr Dhanjal argues that the logical conclusion from the situation is that the ODPP has not done an independent, fair and proper investigation to determine whether the matter deserves prosecution or not.

According to the petitioner, the ODPP would have easily met the constitutional criteria by staying (suspending) the intended allegations pending final determination of the succession case by the High Court and advise reconciliation.

“In addition to the foregoing express failure by the ODPP to protect independence apparently failed to take cognizance of the investigations whether conclusive or not should be revised and an order to stay the prosecution be granted to avoid subjecting the petitioner to unfair litigious process yet this is a family matter,” part of the petition states.

The petitioner also wants an order issued restraining the respondents from charging him in the criminal case at the magistrate’s court in Mombasa or in any other criminal cases relating to matters succession or any further victimisation.