[2004] KEHC 742 (KLR)
The court found that the applicant's continued detention for over a month without being charged or brought before a court was a violation of his constitutional rights under Section 72(3) of the Constitution of Kenya. The respondent's justification, that identification parades were pending, was rejected as...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2004] KEHC 742 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Charles Mbithi Mwangangi; Respondent: Republic through the Attorney General
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Machakos
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- ? 67 of 2004
- Procedural Posture
- Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application for Release or Bail Pending Charge
- Outcome
- application allowed in part
- Legal Topics
- Unlawful Detention, Bail and Bond, Constitutional Rights of Accused, Pretrial Procedure
- Source Language
- en
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Charles Mbithi Mwangangi
Applicant
Republic through the Attorney General
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application for Release or Bail Pending Charge
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the continued detention of the applicant without being charged violates constitutional rights.
- 2 Whether the applicant should be released on bail or produced before court within a specified period.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the applicant's continued detention for over a month without being charged or brought before a court was a violation of his constitutional rights under Section 72(3) of the Constitution of Kenya. The respondent's justification, that identification parades were pending, was rejected as insufficient to override the constitutional time limits for detention. The court held that the state had abused the applicant's rights and ordered that the applicant be produced before the court within 24 hours of the ruling or be released on bail.
Court Disposition
application allowed in part
Orders
- The applicant shall be produced before the court within 24 hours of this ruling or be released on bail.
- Mention scheduled for 10/12/04.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
15 paragraphs
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT MACHAKOS HIGH COURT MISC. (CR) APPLICATION NO. 67 OF 2004
CHARLES MBITHI MWANGANGI::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: APPLICANT
VERSUS
REPUBLIC THRO’ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: RESPONDENT
R U L I N G
The applicant moved this court under Section 389 (1) and 2 Criminal Procedure Code, Rules 1, (2), 3 and 7 of Rules made under the Criminal Procedure code seeking orders that directions do issue to the Officer Commanding Police Division (OCPD) Machakos, Commissioner of Police the Hon. The Attorney General Republic of Kenya to appear before this court to show cause why the applicant should not be released forthwith and in the alternative, the court do order that applicant be released on bail and/or his relatives be allowed to access the applicant.
The ground upon which the application was brought are that the applicant was arrested on 4/11/04 from his Thika home after a search. He was taken to Machakos police station on 5/11/04 where he spent the night and was released on the next day to an unknown destination. The applicant’s wife Mary Nthenya Mbithi swore an affidavit in support of the application and reiterates the grounds.
Mr O’Mirera the learned state counsel on behalf of the Respondents does concede that the applicant was arrested for suspicion that he was involved in a series of offences committed in Makueni District and that the charges will be preferred against him but for some technicalities like conduct of identification parades and once ready will be arraigned in court.
Though the state counsel contends that he is not required to file an affidavit in response to this application, Rule 5 of the Rules made under Section 389 (2) seem to suggest that affidavits should be filed in duplicate, of which one copy shall be served on the applicant. The state did not file any.
Under the constitution of Kenya Section 72 (3) a person who is detained on suspicion of committing an offence should be brought before a court of law within 24 hours and if suspected of an offence punishable by death shall be brought to court within 14 days. The state counsel concedes that the applicant was arrested one month ago. It is not disclosed whether he will be charged with offences punishable by death but whatever the offence, 14 days have lapsed. It is total abuse of the applicant’s constitutional rights. The excuse given by the state counsel identification parades are yet to be conducted is neither here nor there. A period of one month is more than enough and this court does order that the applicant should be produced before the court within 24 hours of this court’s ruling or be released on bail. Mention on 10/12/04
Dated, read and delivered at Machakos this 8th day of December 2004.
Read and delivered in the
Presence of
R.V. WENDOH
JUDGE