[2018] KEHC 5158 (KLR)

[2018] KEHC 5158 (KLR)

The court found that the applicant failed to provide cogent and tangible evidence to support his apprehension of bias or likelihood of not receiving a fair trial in Chuka Law Courts. The allegations were deemed speculative and unsupported by facts. The court also determined that Chuka Law Courts was more central and...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2018] KEHC 5158 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: David Kariri Mbugua; Respondent: Republic
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Chuka
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Miscellaneous Criminal Application 32 of 2017
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application for Transfer of Criminal Case
Outcome
application dismissed
Judges
BB Limo
Legal Topics
Transfer of Criminal Cases, Fair Trial Rights, Jurisdiction of Magistrates Courts
Source Language
en
Criminal Law Civil Procedure Transfer of Criminal Cases Fair Trial Rights Jurisdiction of Magistrates Courts

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

David Kariri Mbugua

Applicant

Republic

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application for Transfer of Criminal Case

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant has established sufficient grounds under Section 81 of the Criminal Procedure Code for transfer of the criminal case from Chuka Law Courts to Meru County.
  2. 2 Whether the applicant has demonstrated a real likelihood of bias or lack of fair trial in Chuka Law Courts.
  3. 3 Whether the decision of the Director of Public Prosecution on where to charge the applicant can be challenged by way of Notice of Motion rather than Judicial Review.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicant failed to provide cogent and tangible evidence to support his apprehension of bias or likelihood of not receiving a fair trial in Chuka Law Courts. The allegations were deemed speculative and unsupported by facts. The court also determined that Chuka Law Courts was more central and convenient for the majority of witnesses, as unchallenged by the applicant. Furthermore, the court held that the decision of the Director of Public Prosecution regarding the venue for prosecution is an administrative act that can only be challenged through Judicial Review, not by Notice of Motion. The applicant did not pursue recusal of the trial court nor did he demonstrate...

Court Disposition

application dismissed

Orders

  • The application dated 29th November 2017 is disallowed for lack of merit and being bad in law.