Last Updated on March 2, 2026 by courtnews reporter
Justice Lawrence Mugambi Dismisses Safaricom Bid to Block DCI, DPP Probe
Safaricom has suffered a setback after the High Court dismissed its petition seeking to block investigations into its officials.
Justice Lawrence Mugambi ruled against the telecommunications company in a 42-page decision.
The company had asked the court to restrain the Director of Criminal Investigations (DCI) and the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) from investigating and prosecuting its officials alongside former employees of ATL/BTL Creatives and Digital Services.
Court Says Petition Lacked Merit
In his ruling, Justice Mugambi stated that criminal investigations are governed by specific statutes under criminal law.
He said such investigations cannot be classified as administrative actions.
“The upshot is that this Petition lacks merit and is hereby dismissed in its entirety,” ruled Justice Mugambi.
Access to Information Argument Rejected
Safaricom had argued that the DCI violated its constitutional right to access information under Article 35.
However, the judge disagreed.
He ruled that the refusal by the DCI to provide certain information was meant to protect the integrity of the investigation.
“The refusal to supply the information by the DCI was meant to protect the integrity of the investigation within the permissible limitations set out under the Access to Information Act,” the judge said.
Article 50 Does Not Apply at Investigation Stage
The court also addressed arguments based on Article 50 of the Constitution, which guarantees fair trial rights.
Justice Mugambi clarified that Article 50(2)(j) does not apply at the investigative stage.
No formal charges have been filed against the Safaricom employees.
“The matter is still at the investigatory stage where Safaricom PLC employees are only required to give information to enable investigators make a fair determination,” he said.
Article 47 Claim Dismissed
Safaricom had further argued that its right to fair administrative action under Article 47 had been violated.
The judge rejected this argument.
He ruled that criminal investigations and prosecutions are not administrative actions.
Background of the Dispute
Safaricom moved to court seeking to stop the DCI and DPP from:
-
Investigating
-
Summoning
-
Arresting its officials
The investigations relate to a 2016 creative and digital agency tender issued on January 25, 2016.
The probe reportedly focuses on alleged conflict of interest and possible theft of intellectual property.
Safaricom’s Position
Safaricom’s Senior Manager for Litigation, Legal Services and Secretarial Services, Daniel Ndaba, told the court that the summons related to alleged conflict of interest.
He argued that the company’s tender was for advertising services, not software development.
“This is because DCI claims that the tender required a company that could develop software designed to satisfy the needs of the procuring entity yet Safaricom’s tender was for advertising,” Ndaba said.
He also stated that Safaricom had requested information from the DCI but did not receive a response.
Ndaba said the company was surprised to receive summons on September 5, 2023.
Safaricom expressed concern that statements recorded during interviews could later be used as evidence in court.
What the Ruling Means
The High Court decision allows the DCI and DPP to continue investigations into the 2016 tender.
The ruling reinforces that courts will not interfere with ongoing criminal investigations unless clear constitutional violations are demonstrated.
Kenya Court News Today – Live High Court & DPP Updates click here 👉 /kenya-court-news-today