[2021] KEHC 6053 (KLR)
The court found that the trial magistrate acted irregularly by presuming the prosecution had closed its case and proceeding to prepare a judgment without any evidence being adduced or witnesses called. This amounted to a fundamental procedural error and a miscarriage of justice. The High Court, exercising its...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2021] KEHC 6053 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Edward Mzee Karezi; Respondent: Republic
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Malindi
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Criminal Revision E050 of 2021
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Revision / Ruling on Revision Application
- Outcome
- Application for revision allowed; proceedings quashed; matter remitted for hearing.
- Judges
- DB Nyakundi
- Legal Topics
- Supervisory Jurisdiction, Revisionary Jurisdiction, Procedural Irregularity, Quashing Orders
- 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
Edward Mzee Karezi
Applicant
Republic
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Criminal Revision / Ruling on Revision Application
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the trial magistrate erred in presuming the prosecution had closed its case without any evidence adduced.
- 2 Whether the proceedings and intended judgment were regular, proper, and just in the absence of a trial.
- 3 Whether the High Court should exercise its supervisory and revisionary jurisdiction to quash the proceedings.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the trial magistrate acted irregularly by presuming the prosecution had closed its case and proceeding to prepare a judgment without any evidence being adduced or witnesses called. This amounted to a fundamental procedural error and a miscarriage of justice. The High Court, exercising its supervisory and revisionary jurisdiction under Article 165(6) and (7) of the Constitution and section 362 of the Criminal Procedure Code, determined that the proceedings were devoid of regularity, propriety, and correctness. Consequently, the court issued a writ of certiorari to quash the order purporting that the prosecution and defence cases had concluded, and directed that the...
Court Disposition
Application for revision allowed; proceedings quashed; matter remitted for hearing.
Orders
- A writ of certiorari is issued quashing the order that the prosecution and defence case had concluded.
- The original file Criminal Case No.569 of 2018 is remitted back to the trial court for hearing and determination.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
33 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA
AT MALINDI
CRIMINAL REVISION NO. E050 OF 2021
EDWARD MZEE KAREZI…………………..………………APPLICANT
VERSUS
REPUBLIC …………………………………..……………..RESPONDENT
Coram: Hon. R. Nyakundi
Mr Mwangi for the State
R U L I N G
BACKGROUND
EDWARD MZEE KAMZI was on 28. 6.2018 charged before her honour Ivy Wasike a Senior Resident Magistrate sitting at Malindi for the offence of obtaining credit by false pretence contrary to section 316(a) of the Penal Code. The brief particulars being that;-
COUNT I;-Obtaining credit by false pretence contrary to section 316(a) of the Penal Code.
Particulars;-On 22. 11. 2016 at Malindi township in Malindi Sub-County within Kilifi County, accused incurred a debt to JULIUS KAZUNGU CHARO, obtained a credit of Kshs.300, 000/- from the said JULIUS KAZUNGU CHAROby falsely pretending that he was in position to pay the debt on 21/12/2016 a face he knew was false
COUNT II;-Issuing bad cheque contrary to section 316(A) sub-section (1) (c) as read with sub-section (4) of the Penal Code
Particulars;- On the 22nd day of November, 2016 at Malindi Township in Malindi Sub-County within Kilifi County issued cheque number 00022 for Kenya shillings 390,000/- to JULIUS KAZUNGU CHARO on Barclays bank account number 2036767777 when the said EDWARD MZEE KAREZI had instructed the bank not to honour the said cheque.
COUNT III;-Issuing bad cheque contrary to section 316A sub-section (1) (a) as read with sub-section (4) of the Penal Code.
Particulars;-On the 12th day of June, 2017 at Malindi Township in Malindi sub-county within Kilifi County, issued cheque number 00026 for Kenya shillings 500,000/= to JULIUS KAZUNGU CHARO on Barclays bank account number 2036767777 with the knowledge that the said Barclays bank account had insufficient funds.
COUNT IV;-Issuing bad cheque contrary to section 316A sub-section (1) (c) as read with sub-section (4) of the Penal Code.
Particulars;-On the 8th day of June, 2018 at Malindi Township in Malindi Sub-county within Kilifi County, issued cheque number 000016 for Kenya shillings 100,000/= to JULIUS KAZUNGU CHARO on KCB bank account number 1220438464 when the said EDWARD MZEE KAREZIhad instructed the bank not to honour the said cheque.
The accused pleaded not guilty to the charges, therefore setting in motion for the state to proof the allegations beyond reasonable doubt. The trial apparently, despite the lapse of time has never commenced by way of summoning the prosecution witnesses. In an unprecedented judicial act, the Learned Trial Magistrate presumed that the prosecution had adduced evidence and closed its case against the accused. It is clear that a judgement date was scheduled by the session learned trial magistrate.
From the record there is no evidence of a trial held against the accused by the prosecution to warrant a tactical rebuttal from the accused. The particulars of the record also demonstrate an accused released on bail with effect form 2. 7.2018 but taken flight out of the jurisdiction of the Court.
At the time of the purported action by the Learned Trial Magistrate to pen down draft judgement with subsequent delivery, the record remained a mere shell in absence of any evidence adduced in support of the indictments. There is therefore an error apparent on the face of the record.
DETERMINATION
It is from these considerations the learned trial magistrate preferred the matter to the High Court pursuant to Article 165 (6) and (7) of the Constitution as read in conjunction with section 362 of the Criminal Procedure Code on supervisory and revisionary jurisdiction. In accordance to the provisions of section 362 of the Civil Procedure Code the impugned record has now been called for and perused within the scope of Article 165 (6), 87 of the Constitution and the aforesaid provisions of the Code.
In light of the true reflection of the record it is the court’s view that there is total absence of regularity, proprietary, correctness and justness of the proceedings to call upon any session magistrate to set in motion preparation of a judgement capable of meeting the test outlined under section 169 of the Criminal Procedure Code.
For those reasons, a writ of certiorari quashing the order therein providing that the prosecution and defence case had concluded for the learned trial magistrate to pronounce judgement on the merits against the accused person. Therefore the original file Criminal Case No.569 of 2018do revert back to the trial Court for hearing and determination.
DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED AT MALINDI THIS 16TH DAY OF JUNE, 2021
…………………………………………………
R. NYAKUNDI
JUDGE
In the presence of
Mr Mwangi for the State