[2003] KEHC 224 (KLR)

[2003] KEHC 224 (KLR)

The court held that it is not the proper forum to determine, at this preliminary stage, whether the charges against the applicant are civil or criminal in nature. Such a determination should be made by the trial court after hearing and testing the evidence. The High Court emphasized that it is not the investigator or the trial court, and that the Attorney General's decision to prosecute should not be interfered with unless there is clear abuse of process. Since the issues raised by the applicant are matters for the trial court, the application for prohibition and termination of the criminal proceedings was found to be premature and without merit, leading to its dismissal.

Citation
[2003] KEHC 224 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: Benjamin Muthokia Mwangi; Respondent: Republic
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Judgment Date
27 March 2003
Case Number
Children Miscellaneous Application 109 of 2003
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Chamber Summons for Prohibition and Termination of Criminal Proceedings
Outcome
application dismissed
Legal Topics
Abuse of Process, Criminal Vs Civil Liability, Prohibition Orders, Termination of Proceedings
Source Language
English
Criminal Law Civil Procedure Abuse of Process Criminal Vs Civil Liability Prohibition Orders Termination of Proceedings

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Benjamin Muthokia Mwangi

Applicant

Republic

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Chamber Summons for Prohibition and Termination of Criminal Proceedings

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the criminal charges against the applicant are of a purely civil nature and should be terminated by prohibition.
  2. 2 Whether the High Court should intervene to prohibit or terminate ongoing criminal proceedings before the trial court.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that it is not the proper forum to determine, at this preliminary stage, whether the charges against the applicant are civil or criminal in nature. Such a determination should be made by the trial court after hearing and testing the evidence. The High Court emphasized that it is not the investigator or the trial court, and that the Attorney General's decision to prosecute should not be interfered with unless there is clear abuse of process. Since the issues raised by the applicant are matters for the trial court, the application for prohibition and termination of the criminal proceedings was found to be premature and without merit, leading to its dismissal.

Court Disposition

application dismissed

Orders

  • The application for prohibition and termination of criminal cases Nos 986 of 2001, 1722 of 2001 and 2455 of 2001 is dismissed.