[2020] KEHC 1608 (KLR)
The court held that the mere existence of a civil suit over property ownership does not justify staying criminal proceedings for forcible retainer. The criminal case was instituted before the civil suit, and the applicant failed to demonstrate that the criminal process was being used oppressively or as an abuse of...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2020] KEHC 1608 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Daraja Self Help Group (through their chairman Ibrahim Guyo); Respondent: Benard M’Nkubitu; Respondent: Joseph Murungi; Respondent: Lucia Kabui
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Meru
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Miscellaneous Civil Case 13 of 2020
- Procedural Posture
- Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application for Stay of Criminal Proceedings
- Outcome
- application dismissed
- Judges
- F Gikonyo
- Legal Topics
- Stay of Proceedings, Abuse of Process, Adverse Possession, Ownership Dispute, Forcible Retainer
- 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
Daraja Self Help Group (through their chairman Ibrahim Guyo)
Applicant
Benard M’Nkubitu
Respondent
Joseph Murungi
Respondent
Lucia Kabui
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application for Stay of Criminal Proceedings
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the High Court should stay criminal proceedings in Maua CRC No. 3040 of 2019 pending determination of ownership in MERU ELC CASE No. 5 OF 2020.
- 2 Whether the existence of a civil dispute over property ownership justifies halting a criminal trial for forcible retainer.
- 3 Whether the criminal proceedings constitute an abuse of process or are being used oppressively.
Ratio Decidendi
The court held that the mere existence of a civil suit over property ownership does not justify staying criminal proceedings for forcible retainer. The criminal case was instituted before the civil suit, and the applicant failed to demonstrate that the criminal process was being used oppressively or as an abuse of process. The issues raised by the applicant can be addressed as a defence in the criminal trial. Therefore, there was no legal basis to halt the criminal proceedings, and the application for stay was rejected.
Court Disposition
application dismissed
Orders
- The application for stay of proceedings in Maua CRC No. 3040 of 2019 is rejected.
- This ruling to be served upon the trial court.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
20 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT MERU
MISC CIVIL CASE NO 13 OF 2020
DARAJA SELF HELP GROUP (through their
chairman Ibrahim Guyo).....................................PLAINTIFF/APPLICANT
VERSUS
BENARD M’NKUBITU.............................1ST DEFENDANT/RESPONDENT
JOSEPH MURUNGI................................2ND DEFENDANT/RESPONDENT
LUCIA KABUI........................................3RD DEFENDANT/RESPONDENT
RULING
1. By a Notice of Motion dated 10/2/2020, the applicant has sought stay of proceedings in Maua CRC No. 3040 of 2019 pending determination of MERU ELC CASE No. 5 OF 2020 on ownership of property. The application is premised upon grounds set out in the application and supporting affidavit. In a nutshell they argued:
a) That the applicants were charged with the above criminal case with the offence of forcible retainer contrary to section 91 as read with section 36 of the Penal Code.
b) That they have lived on the suit property for over 12 years and have filed court action for adverse possession.
c) That court is in the process of determining ownership of the suit property, hence, the need to stop the criminal proceedings.
2. I have been called upon to stop a criminal proceeding at Maua for the reason that the suit property is subject to an ownership dispute in ELC No.5 of 2020. From the papers filed, the ELC suit was filed on 29/1/2020; yet, the criminal proceedings were instituted on 30/9/2019. The proceedings in ELC are now being used to call for stay of the criminal proceedings. This is problematic.
3. In any case, the complaint in this application should be presented as a defence to the charges or as an issue for determination in the criminal trial. Courts have stated time without number that criminal trial is a can only be stopped where it is being used oppressively or is an abuse of process, or is being used for purposes other than bringing the accused to justice. None of these exists. There is absolutely nothing on which this court can stop the criminal process or has been alleged. I reject their application. This ruling be served upon the trial court. It is so ordered.
Dated, signed and delivered at Narok through Teams Application this 23rd day of November, 2020
...........................
F. GIKONYO
JUDGE