[1990] KEHC 52 (KLR)
The court found that the learned magistrate failed to comply with the mandatory procedures prescribed by the Criminal Procedure Code for binding over orders. Specifically, the magistrate did not conduct a full inquiry into the truth of the information provided, nor did he satisfy himself that it was necessary for...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [1990] KEHC 52 (KLR)
- Parties
- Appellant: Daniel Mwagona; Appellant: Gavana Ngoi; Appellant: Jimmy Moses Muranga; Appellant: Katana Dadi; Respondent: Republic
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Mombasa
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Criminal Appeal 538, 539, 540 & 541 of 1989
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Appeal / Judgment
- Outcome
- appeal allowed
- Legal Topics
- Binding Over Orders, Procedure for Keeping Peace, Magistrate Inquiry Requirements
- 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
Daniel Mwagona
Appellant
Gavana Ngoi
Appellant
Jimmy Moses Muranga
Appellant
Katana Dadi
Appellant
Republic
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the magistrate complied with the mandatory procedures under the Criminal Procedure Code before ordering the appellants to be bound over to keep peace.
- 2 Whether the order to keep peace and execute a bond was valid in the absence of a full inquiry as required by law.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the learned magistrate failed to comply with the mandatory procedures prescribed by the Criminal Procedure Code for binding over orders. Specifically, the magistrate did not conduct a full inquiry into the truth of the information provided, nor did he satisfy himself that it was necessary for keeping peace that the appellants should execute a bond. The process was prematurely concluded based solely on the appellants' acceptance to sign the bond, without affording them the procedural safeguards required by law. As a result, the order to keep peace and to execute a bond was declared a nullity, and the appeal was allowed.
Court Disposition
appeal allowed
Orders
- The appeal of each appellant is allowed.
- The order to keep peace and not to cause disturbance is quashed.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
29 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT AT MOMBASA
CRIMINAL APPEALS NOS 538, 539, 540 & 541 OF 1989 (CONSOLIDATED)
DANIEL MWAGONA
GAVANA NGOI
JIMMY MOSES MURANGA
KATANA DADI………………………….….APPELLANTS
VERSUS
REPUBLIC…………...……………..……..RESPONDENT
(From the original conviction and sentence of the Resident Magistrate’s Court at Kilifi, PM Ndungu, Esq, RM in Criminal Case No 823 of 1989)
JUDGMENT
Criminal appeals Nos 539/89, 540/89 and 541/89 have been consolidated with this appeal.
The four appellants appeared in court on the basis of an affidavit of CI Simon Mutua, OCS Kilifi Police Station, to show cause why they should not be bound over to keep peace.
The record shows that when the appellants appeared in court on 4/9/89, the charge was read over and explained and each appellant is recorded to have replied “It is true”.
CI Simon Mutua then gave evidence on oath as PW 1. After his evidence the court asked the appellants to show cause why they should not be bound over. Each of them then stated that he was ready to sign a bond to keep peace. The learned magistrate thereupon ordered each appellant to keep peace and not to cause any disturbance for a period of one year and that each should execute a bond of shs 10,000/-. Each appellant executed the bond.
Daniel Mwagona one of the appellants is a Headmaster of a primary school while Gavana Ngoi is retired Assistant Chief. Jimmy Moses Muranga is a Deputy Headmaster of a primary school while Katana Dadi is a farmer. I am now informed that the two headmasters have been interdicted because of the order to keep peace.
It is argued in this appeal that the order to keep peace and to execute a bond is a nullity because the provisions of S 43, 47, 52 and 53 of the Criminal Procedure Code were not complied with. Those sections read together show the procedure to be followed as follows:-
1. The first step upon receiving information as provided in S 43(1) of CPC is to examine the informant on oath.
2. The second step as provided in S 47 of CPC is that, if the magistrate deems it necessary to require a person to show cause he should make an order in writing setting out the matters mentioned is S 47(a) – 47(c) of CPC.
3. After the order as above is made, the third step as provided in S 52 (1) of CPC is for the magistrate to hold an inquiry into the truth of the information upon which the action has been taken.
4. The fourth step as provided in S 53(1) of the CPC is to make an order to execute a bond if upon inquiry, it is proved that it is necessary for keeping peace or maintaining good behaviour that the person should execute a bond.
It seems clear that the magistrate must hold an inquiry conducted as provided in S 52(2) of CPR as nearly as the manner in conducting trials in criminal cases. It is also clear that it is after conducting the inquiry that the magistrate will come to the conclusion whether or not the information has been proved and if proved decide whether it is necessary for keeping peace that the person should be required to execute a bond.
The cardinal procedure of conducting criminal trials is that the person against whom the complaint is brought should be given a chance to defend himself. As there is no charge, the nature of the inquiry does not envisage the recording of a plea. Further, as there is no charge, I think that the person cannot be required to execute the bond merely because he accepts to sign the bond and before the magistrate has held a full inquiry and satisfied himself that the information is true.
Upon scrutiny of the record, it is apparent that the learned magistrate did not comply with the procedures set out by the law and did not hold a full inquiry and satisfy himself that the information was true and also that it was necessary for keeping peace that appellants should execute bond. The order to keep peace and to execute bond was made prematurely and is a nullity.
I allow the appeal of each appellant, quash the order to keep peace and not to cause disturbance and discharge the appellants from the bond. I hope, however, that the appellants will pursue the complaint they have in accordance with the law.
Dated and Delivered at Mombasa this 12th Day of July, 1990
E.M. GITHINJI
……………..
JUDGE