[2009] KEHC 261 (KLR)

[2009] KEHC 261 (KLR)

The court found that the applicant was arrested on 12th September, 2008, not 21st August, 2008 as alleged. The period between arrest and arraignment was accounted for by ongoing investigations in two districts, the forwarding of the file to the Attorney General for advice, and the subsequent review by the...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2009] KEHC 261 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: Dicklack Ncherere Sakwa; Respondent: Republic
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Kisii
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Criminal Case 38 of 2008
Procedural Posture
Criminal Case / Ruling on Constitutional Reference During Trial
Outcome
application dismissed
Legal Topics
Right to Fair Trial, Pre Trial Detention, Arraignment Delay, Murder Charge
Source Language
en
Criminal Law Constitutional Law Right to Fair Trial Pre Trial Detention Arraignment Delay Murder Charge

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 2 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Dicklack Ncherere Sakwa

Applicant

Republic

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Case / Ruling on Constitutional Reference During Trial

  1. 1 Whether the applicant's constitutional right to a fair and expeditious trial was violated by the delay in arraignment.
  2. 2 Whether the period of detention prior to arraignment was justified under the circumstances.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicant was arrested on 12th September, 2008, not 21st August, 2008 as alleged. The period between arrest and arraignment was accounted for by ongoing investigations in two districts, the forwarding of the file to the Attorney General for advice, and the subsequent review by the prosecution counsel. The additional two days the file remained in the prosecution office were not considered inordinate, especially given the limited staffing at the time. The court concluded that the delay was justified and did not amount to a violation of the applicant's constitutional right to a fair and expeditious trial. Consequently, the application lacked merit and was dismissed.

Court Disposition

application dismissed

Orders

  • The application is dismissed.
  • The state should proceed to call the remaining witnesses.