[2022] KEHC 2952 (KLR)

[2022] KEHC 2952 (KLR)

The court found that the applicants failed to disclose any urgency in their affidavit to justify hearing the matter during the court recess. Additionally, the applicants did not provide reasons for seeking revision from the High Court or indicate whether they had applied for or been denied bail in the lower court....

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2022] KEHC 2952 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: Evans Otieno Ongango; Applicant: Brian Odhiambo Otieno; Respondent: Republic
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Siaya
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Criminal Revision 1 of 2022
Procedural Posture
Criminal Revision / Ruling on Application for Leave to Be Heard During Recess and for Bail Pending Trial
Outcome
Application for urgency and hearing during recess declined; matter referred to Kisumu High Court for inter partes hearing.
Judges
RE Aburili
Legal Topics
Bail Pending Trial, Criminal Revision, Robbery With Violence, Urgent Applications
Source Language
en
Criminal Law Bail Pending Trial Criminal Revision Robbery With Violence Urgent Applications

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 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Evans Otieno Ongango

Applicant

Brian Odhiambo Otieno

Applicant

Republic

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Revision / Ruling on Application for Leave to Be Heard During Recess and for Bail Pending Trial

  1. 1 Whether the application discloses sufficient urgency to warrant hearing during court recess.
  2. 2 Whether the applicants have provided reasons for seeking revision and bail from the High Court instead of the lower court.
  3. 3 Whether the applicants have applied for or been denied bail in the lower court.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicants failed to disclose any urgency in their affidavit to justify hearing the matter during the court recess. Additionally, the applicants did not provide reasons for seeking revision from the High Court or indicate whether they had applied for or been denied bail in the lower court. The court therefore declined to certify the matter as urgent and refused to hear the application during the recess, instead directing that the application be served upon the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions for inter partes consideration before the High Court at Kisumu.

Court Disposition

Application for urgency and hearing during recess declined; matter referred to Kisumu High Court for inter partes hearing.

Orders

  • Application not certified as urgent.
  • Application not heard during recess.