Court Rejects Bid to Drop Charges Against Heritage Flowers Director Accused of Death Threats

A Nairobi court has blocked an attempt by prosecutors to withdraw criminal charges against a director of Heritage Flowers Ltd accused of threatening to shoot and kill a business rival, ruling that the reasons presented did not meet the constitutional threshold required to halt the case.

Milimani Principal Magistrate Caroline Mugo declined an application by the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions led by Renson Ingonga, saying the court could not endorse what she described as an unexplained reversal by the prosecution.

The ruling means that Shaileshi Kumari Rai, a director at Heritage Flowers Ltd, will proceed to trial over allegations that he threatened to kill businessman Punjani Riyaz Mahammadali during a confrontation in Nairobi.

Magistrate Mugo ruled that the prosecution had failed to demonstrate why it now considered the evidence insufficient despite previously approving charges and setting the case down for hearing.

“Justice is served when prosecutorial power is exercised with transparency, consistency and fidelity to the Constitution,” the magistrate said while rejecting the request to withdraw the case under Section 87(a) of the Criminal Procedure Code.

She warned that courts cannot allow the criminal justice system to become “a revolving door where decisions shift without explanation.”

According to the court, prosecutors had earlier reviewed the investigation file, approved the charges and arraigned the accused after concluding that the available evidence met the legal threshold for prosecution. However, in seeking to terminate the case, the prosecution merely cited “insufficiency of evidence” without explaining what had changed.

“There is no evidence demonstrating the emergence of new material, recantation of key witnesses, loss of exhibits or any supervening circumstance that would justify the abrupt shift in position,” the magistrate said.

The court further found that prosecutors had breached provisions of the Victim Protection Act (Kenya) by failing to inform the complainant of their intention to withdraw the charges.

Magistrate Mugo noted that the complainant had been actively involved in the proceedings and had even secured legal representation. Under Kenya’s constitutional framework, victims are entitled to participate in criminal proceedings and must be informed of key prosecutorial decisions.

“It is unfathomable for the prosecution to waive the complainant’s right to be informed and involved in the decision to withdraw the charges,” she ruled, adding that victims are no longer passive spectators in criminal trials.

The magistrate cited jurisprudence from the Supreme Court of Kenya, which recognizes victims as active participants in the justice process within constitutionally defined limits.

Court documents indicate that Rai is accused of threatening Mahammadali on May 27, 2022, in Parklands, within Westlands Sub-County in Nairobi.

The charge sheet stated that without lawful excuse, he uttered unprintable words with Hindu language meaning “****” I will come and shoot you in the *** right now” words which directly caused Punjani to receive threats.

Prosecutors allege that during the confrontation he uttered threatening words in Hindi indicating that he would immediately shoot the complainant, causing him to fear for his life.

Although the defence has suggested the dispute is linked to a business rivalry and possible civil disagreements, the magistrate said the existence of a commercial dispute does not automatically negate criminal liability.

“While the court appreciates that criminal proceedings should not be weaponized to settle civil disputes, where a criminal element is disclosed the charges may still be sustained,” she said.

Mugo emphasized that while the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions has constitutional authority to review or discontinue prosecutions, such decisions must comply with Article 157(11) of the Constitution, which requires prosecutors to consider public interest, the administration of justice and the need to prevent abuse of legal process.

Allowing the withdrawal without explanation, the magistrate warned, would reduce the court’s oversight role to a ceremonial endorsement of prosecutorial decisions.

“The court must ensure that prosecutorial discretion is exercised lawfully, in good faith and not in abuse of the process,” she ruled.

Rai remains out on cash bail as the case proceeds to hearing at the Milimani Law Courts.