David Mogaka v Republic [2017] KEHC 3842 (KLR)
- Citation
- [2017] KEHC 3842 (KLR)
- Status
- Judgment
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Court
- High Court
- Panel
- MM Kasango
- Case number
- Criminal Revision 119 of 2017
- Language
- English
More details
- Court
- High Court
- Panel
- MM Kasango
- Case number
- Criminal Revision 119 of 2017
- Language
- English
On this page
Professional case brief
Research organized from the available case record
01
Holding and result
The High Court declined to exercise its revisionary jurisdiction because the applicant's grievance related to the merits of the trial court's finding and order, which are matters properly addressed through an appeal rather than revision. The court found that the trial court's order was made in accordance with section 166(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code, and that there was no error, illegality, or impropriety justifying revision under section 362. The applicant was advised to pursue an appeal if dissatisfied with the trial court's decision.
Court disposition
Revision declined.
Orders
- The application for revision is declined.
- The applicant may file an appeal if dissatisfied with the trial court's finding.
02
Material facts
Parties
David Mogaka
PlaintiffRepublic
Respondent03
Procedural history
Posture
Criminal Revision / Ruling on Revision
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
- 01
Whether the High Court should exercise its revisionary jurisdiction under section 362 of the Criminal Procedure Code to revise the order of the trial court holding the applicant at the pleasure of the president.
- 02
Whether the applicant should pursue an appeal rather than revision.
Party arguments
- Applicant
- The applicant, David Mogaka, sought revision of the trial court's order that he be held at the pleasure of the president following a finding of guilty but insane for unlawful wounding. He invoked the High Court's jurisdiction under section 362 of the Criminal Procedure Code, seeking a review of the lower court's decision.
- Respondent
- The respondent maintained that the trial court's order was proper and in accordance with the law, specifically section 166(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code, and that the matter was not suitable for revision but rather for appeal if the applicant was dissatisfied.
05
Court’s reasoning
Legal principles
- 01
Section 362, Criminal Procedure Code
The High Court's revisionary jurisdiction under section 362 of the Criminal Procedure Code is discretionary and is not a substitute for an appeal.
- 02
Section 166(2), Criminal Procedure Code
Where a person is found guilty but insane, the court is required to order that the person be held at the pleasure of the president.
- 03
Kenyan case law and statutory interpretation
Revision is not appropriate where the applicant's grievance relates to the merits of the conviction or sentence, which should be addressed by way of appeal.
06
Ratio, limits and disposition
Ratio decidendi
The High Court declined to exercise its revisionary jurisdiction because the applicant's grievance related to the merits of the trial court's finding and order, which are matters properly addressed through an appeal rather than revision. The court found that the trial court's order was made in accordance with section 166(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code, and that there was no error, illegality, or impropriety justifying revision under section 362. The applicant was advised to pursue an appeal if dissatisfied with the trial court's decision.
Court disposition
Revision declined.
- The application for revision is declined.
- The applicant may file an appeal if dissatisfied with the trial court's finding.
Source and reliance status
High Court
This page organises the available record for research. Confirm quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the official source before relying on the case.
Judgment reading view
Judgment text
The complete available source text.
High Court
Judgment
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT NANYUKI
CRIMINAL REVISION NO. 119 OF 2017
DAVID MOGAKA...............................PLAINTIFF
VERSUS
REPUBLIC..................................RESPONDENT
(BEING A REVISION OF ORDER OF 13TH JUNE 2017 IN THE NANYUKI CHIEF MAGISTRATE’S COURT CRIMINAL CASE NO. 4 OF 2014 BY HON. W. J. GICHIMU)
RULING ON REVISION
1. David Mogaka was found guilty but insane of unlawful wounding contrary to section 237(a) of the Penal Code. The trial court ordered that he be held at the pleasure of the president as provided under section 166(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code.
2. Mogaka has requested this court to exercise its jurisdiction under section 362 of the Criminal Procedure Code and revised that order.
3. I have perused the lower court’s record and I have formed the view that the matter is not suitable for revision by this court. Mogaka should, if dissatisfied with the finding of the trial court, file an appeal against the same. Accordingly revision is declined.
DATED AT NANYUKI THIS 2ND DAY OF AUGUST 2017
MARY KASANGO
JUDGE
Case-aware research
Ask AI about this case
The judgment and available research above are public. New questions open in a separate private conversation grounded in this case.