[2022] KEHC 2037 (KLR)
The court found that the record of proceedings clearly showed that the respondent/accused was informed of his rights under Section 200(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code and expressly elected for the matter to proceed from where it had reached. Therefore, the trial court complied with the statutory requirements, and...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2022] KEHC 2037 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Director of Public Prosecutions; Respondent: Edwin Wang’ondu Githaiga
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Criminal Revision 011 of 2022
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Revision / Ruling on Revision Application
- Outcome
- application dismissed
- Legal Topics
- Criminal Revision Procedure, Section 200 Criminal Procedure Code, Rights of Accused, Trial Procedure
- 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
Director of Public Prosecutions
Applicant
Edwin Wang’ondu Githaiga
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Criminal Revision / Ruling on Revision Application
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the trial court complied with Section 200(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code in informing the accused of his rights upon change of magistrate.
- 2 Whether the order of the trial court dated 19/1/2022 warranted revision.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the record of proceedings clearly showed that the respondent/accused was informed of his rights under Section 200(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code and expressly elected for the matter to proceed from where it had reached. Therefore, the trial court complied with the statutory requirements, and its order was proper. There was no basis for revision, and the application by the Director of Public Prosecutions was dismissed in its entirety.
Court Disposition
application dismissed
Orders
- The application for revision is dismissed in its entirety.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
25 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA
AT MILIMANI-NAIROBI
CRIMINAL REVISION NO. E 011 OF 2022
DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS……..……APPLICANT
VERSUS
EDWIN WANG’ONDU GITHAIGA…………………RESPONDENT
RULING ON REVISION
The ODPP has applied to have the order of the learned Senior Principal Magistrate (Hon. R. K. Ondieki) dated 19/1/2022 to be revised because that order has not captured what the respondent/accused told the court. The record of the proceedings of 19/1/2022 shows that:
“Ms Gakobo: I have no objection the same can be lifted.
Ms Gakobo: The matter is part heard and we can take directions on section 200(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code.
Court: Section 200(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code explained to the accused. Warrants of arrest lifted.
Accused: I apply that the matter proceeds from where it had reached.”
It is clear that Section 200 (3)” of the Criminal Procedure Code [Cap. 75] Laws of Kenya was complied with, since the respondent/accused clearly told the court that he waited his case to proceed from where it had reached.
the response of the respondent/accused was after he was informed of his rights under Section 200 (3) of Criminal Procedure Code.
In the circumstances, I find that Section 200 (3) of Criminal Procedure Code was complied with the result that the order made by the trial court is proper and does not warrant to be revised.
In the premises, I decline to revise the order of the trial court.
The application is therefore dismissed in its entirety,
Ruling signed, dated and delivered in open court at Nairobi this 25th day of February 2022.
J M BWONWONG’A
JUDGE
In the presence of-
Mr. Kinyua - Court Assistant
Ms Kahoro holding brief for Ms Gakobo for the Applicant
Mr. Onindo for the Respondent