[2006] KEHC 435 (KLR)

[2006] KEHC 435 (KLR)

The High Court found that the applicant's right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time, as protected by section 77(1) of the Constitution, had been grossly violated due to the 13-year delay and the loss of the appeal file, which rendered it impossible for the appeal to be heard. The court held that the right of...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2006] KEHC 435 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: Francis Amazimbi Milimo; Respondent: Republic
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Eldoret
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
? 24 of 2006
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Determination of Application for Redress Under Section 84 of the Constitution Following Missing Appeal File
Outcome
conviction quashed; sentence set aside; applicant discharged and released forthwith
Judges
AI Tullu
Legal Topics
Right to Fair Hearing, Right of Appeal, Unreasonable Delay, Torture and Inhuman Punishment, Judicial Review of Detention
Source Language
en
Constitutional Law Criminal Law Right to Fair Hearing Right of Appeal Unreasonable Delay Torture and Inhuman Punishment Judicial Review of Detention

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

Francis Amazimbi Milimo

Applicant

Republic

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Miscellaneous Application / Determination of Application for Redress Under Section 84 of the Constitution Following Missing Appeal File

  1. 1 Whether the prolonged delay and loss of the appeal file violated the applicant's constitutional right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time.
  2. 2 Whether continued incarceration in the absence of an appeal hearing and missing records amounts to unlawful and unconstitutional detention.
  3. 3 Whether the High Court has jurisdiction to grant redress under section 84 of the Constitution in the absence of a formal application.

Ratio Decidendi

The High Court found that the applicant's right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time, as protected by section 77(1) of the Constitution, had been grossly violated due to the 13-year delay and the loss of the appeal file, which rendered it impossible for the appeal to be heard. The court held that the right of appeal is a constitutional right that cannot be taken away, and that continued incarceration in these circumstances amounted to torture, inhuman and degrading punishment, and unlawful detention. The court exercised its original and inherent jurisdiction under section 84 of the Constitution to grant redress, quashing the conviction and sentence, and ordering the immediate...

Court Disposition

conviction quashed; sentence set aside; applicant discharged and released forthwith

Orders

  • The applicant's conviction is quashed and the sentence set aside.
  • The applicant shall be and is hereby discharged and released forthwith unless otherwise lawfully held.