Kyalo v Republic (Miscellaneous Criminal Application 1 of 2026) [2026] KEHC 6778 (KLR) (18 May 2026) (Ruling)

Kyalo v Republic (Miscellaneous Criminal Application 1 of 2026) [2026] KEHC 6778 (KLR) (18 May 2026) (Ruling) Neutral citation: [2026] KEHC 6778 (KLR) Republic of Kenya In the High Court at Kibera Miscellaneous Criminal Application 1 of 2026 DR Kavedza, J May 18, 2026 Between Alfred Mutinda Kyalo Applicant and Republic Respondent Ruling 1.Before the trial court, the applicant is facing a charge of robbery with violence contrary to section 296(2) of the Penal Code. He pleaded not guilty and the trial is continuing. 2.The applicant has filed an undated Notice of Motion received on 25th March 2026 seeking revision of the trial court's orders. Specifically, he urges this court to revise the trial court's ruling allowing the trial to continue and permit the withdrawal of the matter on the basis that the complainant no longer wished to proceed with the case. He relies on Article 159(2)(c) of the Constitution which obliges courts to promote reconciliation. 3.I have considered the application, the supporting affidavit, and the applicable law. 4.The record of the trial court confirms that on 15th January 2026, when the matter came up for hearing the applicant told the court that the complainant had informed him that he wished to withdraw the matter. The application is grounded on this expression of intent. 5.The court noted that the complainant was not in court on the material day and no document had been filed expressing the intention to withdraw the case. 6.It therefore follows that the withdrawal of the matter cannot be founded merely on an expressed intention by the complainant in the absence of any formal application, affidavit, settlement agreement, or other supporting documentation demonstrating consensus between the parties. Such a course would undermine the integrity of the criminal process and deny the court an opportunity to properly interrogate the circumstances surrounding the intended withdrawal. 7.Further, the jurisdiction of this Court under sections 362 and 364 of the Criminal Procedure Code is limited to correcting illegalities, irregularities, improprieties, or instances of miscarriage of justice apparent on the face of the record. The revisionary jurisdiction is supervisory in nature and does not extend to substituting the discretion of the trial court on matters involving factual assessment, including whether the circumstances justify withdrawal of criminal proceedings. 8.Although Article 159(2)(c) of the Constitution obliges courts to promote reconciliation and alternative dispute resolution mechanisms, the same must be balanced against the duty to uphold the rule of law, safeguard public interest, and protect the rights and welfare of victims. 9.In the circumstances, I find no merit in the application. The request to revise the order of the trial court and permit withdrawal of the matter is premature, unsupported by evidence of mutual agreement between the complainant and the accused/applicant, and incapable of being sustained at this stage. 10.The application is accordingly dismissed.Orders accordingly. RULING DATED AND DELIVERED VIRTUALLY THIS 18TH DAY OF MAY 2026D. KAVEDZAJUDGE