High Court to give direction on Jimi Wanjigi case

Businessman Jimi Wanjigi and his wife Irene Nzisa address the media at their residence in Muthaiga Nairobi on October 18, 2017. PHOTO | DENNIS ONSONGO | NATION MEDIA GROUP

What you need to know:

  • On Tuesday, the court granted Mr Wanjigi an anticipatory bail of Sh 50,000.
  • The couple now want the court to declare police raids a violation of their right to privacy and human dignity.
  • They further want to be paid compensation for the anguish and damage caused to the family as well as their property.

The High Court is today expected to give direction in a case in which businessman Jimi Wanjigi and his wife Irene Nzisa moved to court to protest against his possible arrest.

The couple sued the Inspector General of Police Joseph Boinnet and the Director of Public Prosecution Keriako Tobiko following police raids at his two residences, restaurant and offices.

Parties in the case are expected to appear before Justice Enoch Chacha Mwita.

BAIL

On Tuesday, the judge granted Mr Wanjigi an anticipatory bail of Sh 50,000.

The judge also suspended any arrest attempt against him as well as further destruction of his properties.

Justice Mwita further asked his lawyers to present case documents to the sued parties by today so as to allow further directions to be issued today.

Court was told that police were not justified in any way to destroy Mr Wanjigi’s properties while seeking to have him arrested.

"This is not the first time Wanjigis have been harassed by the police but by their conduct, their current actions clearly indicate that the IG and DPP are now determined to inflict unnecessary damage as well as suffering on them and their family and to extend the same to their properties for reasons that cannot be justified in law,” court was told.

DIGNITY

The raid was a follow up to an initial one in another property in Malindi, Kilifi County on account of a suspected criminal offence at the said place.

The couple now want the court to declare that the action of forcefully entering into their property and destroying it while terrorising as well as humiliating their family is a violation of their right to privacy and human dignity.

They also want it declared that the excessive force was unjustified and that Mr Boinnet should be personally held liable to the various infringements occasioned by his directives.

They further want to be paid compensation for the anguish and damage caused to the family as well as their property.