High Court bars arrest of Nairobi doctor in alleged malicious prosecution case

In orders issued on February 24, 2026, Justice M. Muya certified the matter as urgent and granted conservatory orders restraining the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP), the Inspector General of Police, and the Director of Criminal Investigations (DCI) from arresting, charging, arraigning, or prosecuting  Jane Njeri Kamau and vivian masaai Chebet  pending the hearing and determination of their application.

The case, filed as Petition No. E007 of 2026 before the High Court’s Criminal Division, arose after the DPP approved the institution of criminal proceedings through a letter dated February 5, 2026. The charges reportedly relate to alleged professional negligence in the course of their clinical duties as a medical doctor.

In a Certificate of Urgency filed by her advocate, the petitioner argued that the decision exposed her to imminent arrest and prosecution and was made without due regard to constitutional safeguards, including the right to fair administrative action and fair trial. She further contends that the investigative and prosecutorial processes did not meet constitutional standards.

The court directed that the respondents and an interested party be served and file their responses within seven days. The matter is scheduled for mention on March 17, 2026, for compliance and further directions.

Meanwhile, the doctor and the  nurse through her lawyer Khaminwa, is now seeking the intervention of their respective licencing councils saying the councils  under which they are registered has the capacity and mandate to protect its members.

Her legal team argues that some unqualified operators in the beauty industry who feel threatened by trained dermatologists are allegedly doing “anything under the sun” to discredit legitimate medical practitioners. They claim the criminal complaint forms part of a broader campaign to undermine qualified professionals through malicious reports and business rivalry.

The unfolding case is expected to reignite debate over the regulation of aesthetic and cosmetic procedures, and the balance between prosecutorial discretion and constitutional protections for medical professionals facing criminal liability in the course of their duties.