Court quashes malice charges against woman

The High Court has quashed malicious damage charges against a woman accused of bleaching her husband’s clothes.

Justice Peter Mulwa found that the woman, code-named JP to protect her privacy, should not have ended up in the dock as a suspect because the dispute revolved around family differences with her estranged husband, DKK.

Justice Mulwa was of the view that the dispute could have been resolved through an alternative dispute resolution mechanism.

He said the police were aiding the man to harass his wife as there was no evidence she was the one who bleached the clothes.

“In my view, the investigations and decision to charge her by the respondents are based on mere suspicion that the petitioner may have bleached the interested party’s clothes," he said.

"The decision to charge and proceed with the prosecution is questionable, as the respondents seem to be aiding the complainant to harass and intimidate the petitioner. This is an abuse of the legal process,” said Justice Mulwa.

In the case, JP had sued the DPP and the DCI. She also roped in DKK as an interested party.

Mulwa heard JP was arrested on June 27, 2022, on claims of malicious property damage. The complainant was DKK, who alleged she had bleached his clothes while he was at the police station.

DKK also claimed JP was ordered to surrender car keys but allegedly did not comply. She was released on a Sh20,000 police cash bail.

In her case filed in May this year, JP lamented that the criminal case was a revenge mission after failed attempts to resolve her differences with DKK. She stated that a divorce case was already in court, almost finalising the process.

Drop cases

JP claimed DKK was using the police to force her to drop the divorce, matrimonial and children maintenance cases.

It emerged she had also filed a complaint about her phone being stolen but the officers failed to act.

She noted the issues could have been resolved out of court adding that there was no evidence linking her to the alleged offence.  

The DPP and DCI did not respond. Instead, they asked the court to decide either way.