Joshua Waiganjo who was thrown in the limelight over a decade ago for allegedly impersonating a top cop is now seeking for Sh 1.8 B as damages for malicious prosecution.
In a letter to the Attorney General and DPP, Waiganjo has written a notified them that he intends to sue them for wrongfully charging him years ago.
This comes after the appellate court acquitted Waiganjo in February this year and set him at liberty from the case.
Through his lawyer Danstan Omari, Waiganjo says the notice serves to inform them that he will be suing for wrongful, malicious prosecution which was contrary to his fundamental rights and freedom as envisaged and protected by the constitution of the Kenya.
“Our client will be seeking monetary compensation of Sh 1.8 Billion for malicious prosecution without justifiable cause,” he said.
In the court of appeal judgement issued on February 16 2024, a three-judge bench acquitted Waiganjo.
Justices Pauline Nyamweya, Fred Ochieng and Weldon Korir ruled that order by the high court for Waiganjo’s retrial was not proper or legal.
The court said the learned high court Judge had noted that the Waiganjo was prejudiced for reasons that the exhibit, which was an alleged appointment letter, formed a key plank in his defence and the irregularities by the trial Court in failing to include the letter in the exhibit list or as a document marked for identification could not be cured by Section 382 of the Criminal Procedure Code.
The judges noted that his first appeal was determined by the High Court on June 7 2017, almost two years later, and by that date he had served majority of the sentences imposed upon him by the trial Court, save for the sentence of 5 years’ imprisonment imposed for his conviction for count III.
The court ruled that in effect, a retrial would then only be possible for Count III, and including a retrial for the other counts was in error.
“There was no cross appeal filed against these orders by the learned Judge, and in the circumstances, we allow the Appellant’s appeal, and order that he be set at liberty forthwith unless otherwise lawfully held,” the court ruled.
