Court declines DPP’s request to withdraw theft case against businessman Khatwani
By Zipporah Ngwatu, June 2, 2026A Milimani Court has rejected an application by the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) that sought to withdraw a case of theft against businessman Honey Khatwani.
Khatwani is accused of stealing approximately Ksh356.7 million on diverse dates between January 1, 2020, and June 30, 2024, from OKI General Trading Limited.
The DPP made an application to withdraw the criminal case against the businessman under Section 87(a) of the Criminal Procedure Code.
However, the complainant objected to the application, citing that they were not involved in the intention by the prosecution to withdraw the criminal case.
Milimani Principal Magistrate Rose Ndombi on Tuesday, June 2, 2026, declined the DPP request on the grounds raised by the complainant that they had not been informed of the withdrawal.
Magistrate Ndombi stated that the grounds raised by the DPP on their intention to withdraw are not merited, adding that the criminal and civil matters are distinct.
“The application by the DPP in withdrawal of the charges under Section 87A of the Criminal Procedure Code is declined. The criminal proceedings against the accused shall proceed in accordance with the law,” Magistrate Ndombi ruled.
Why withdrawal was not approved
The court noted that the state’s argument of an ongoing civil dispute between the parties and that discussions aimed at settling the matter had taken place.
However, Magistrate Ndombi stated that the existence of a civil case alone was not sufficient reason to halt criminal proceedings.
“The court notes that the existence of a civil dispute does not by itself justify termination of criminal proceedings,” Magistrate Ndombi noted.
Further, she stated that Section 193A of the Criminal Procedure Code allows civil and criminal proceedings arising from the same facts to run concurrently.
Notably, she stated that the intended withdrawal of the criminal case was tied to a condition requiring a refund of the complainant’s money, a condition that had not been fulfilled.
“The complainant consistently maintained that no such refund has been made. This assertion has not been controverted before the court by the defence,” Magistrate Ndombi noted.
“The court therefore finds itself confronted with a situation where withdrawal is being sought on the basis of a condition that remains unfulfilled,” Ndombi added.
The court has directed the Directorate of Criminal Investigations (DCI) to investigate the theft allegations and take any action that may be warranted by the outcome of the enquiries.