[2009] KEHC 1768 (KLR)

[2009] KEHC 1768 (KLR)

The court found that the applicant was subjected to internal police disciplinary procedures immediately after her arrest, as required by the Police Act, and only after her dismissal were criminal charges preferred. The delay in bringing her before the court was occasioned by the need to conclude these internal...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2009] KEHC 1768 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: Doris Jepkorir Muge; Respondent: Republic
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Eldoret
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Criminal Miscellaneous Application 13 of 2008
Procedural Posture
Criminal Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Constitutional Application Challenging Criminal Process
Outcome
application dismissed
Legal Topics
Breach of Peace, Police Disciplinary Proceedings, Double Jeopardy, Right to Be Brought to Court Within 24 Hours
Source Language
en
Criminal Law Constitutional Law Breach of Peace Police Disciplinary Proceedings Double Jeopardy Right to Be Brought to Court Within 24 Hours

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 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Doris Jepkorir Muge

Applicant

Republic

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Constitutional Application Challenging Criminal Process

  1. 1 Whether the applicant's constitutional right under section 72(3) of the Constitution was violated by not being brought to court within 24 hours of arrest.
  2. 2 Whether the subsequent criminal charge after internal police disciplinary proceedings amounts to double jeopardy.
  3. 3 Whether the delay in charging the applicant rendered the proceedings a nullity.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicant was subjected to internal police disciplinary procedures immediately after her arrest, as required by the Police Act, and only after her dismissal were criminal charges preferred. The delay in bringing her before the court was occasioned by the need to conclude these internal procedures and was not unreasonable or in violation of section 72(3) of the Constitution. The court further held that facing criminal charges after internal disciplinary action does not amount to double jeopardy, as the two processes are distinct in law. The authority relied upon by the applicant was found inapplicable to the facts of this case. Consequently, the application...

Court Disposition

application dismissed

Orders

  • The application is dismissed.