[2018] KEHC 9180 (KLR)
The court found that there was indeed an earlier order by the High Court (Hon. Justice J. Njagi) arresting the delivery of judgment in the trial court pending the determination of a petition. The court acknowledged that if it had been aware of this order at the time of its ruling on 2nd May, 2018, it would not have...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2018] KEHC 9180 (KLR)
- Parties
- Appellant: Francis Ingosi; Respondent: Republic
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Kakamega
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Revision Case 4 of 2018
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Revision / Ruling on Application to Review Previous Revision Order
- Outcome
- Application for review allowed in part; previous order directing delivery of judgment deleted.
- Judges
- AT Sitati
- Legal Topics
- Bond Terms Revision, Error on Face of Record, Conflicting High Court 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
Francis Ingosi
Appellant
Republic
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Criminal Revision / Ruling on Application to Review Previous Revision Order
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the court should review its previous ruling in light of an earlier conflicting order arresting judgment in the trial court.
- 2 Whether the applicant's application constitutes an abuse of court process.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that there was indeed an earlier order by the High Court (Hon. Justice J. Njagi) arresting the delivery of judgment in the trial court pending the determination of a petition. The court acknowledged that if it had been aware of this order at the time of its ruling on 2nd May, 2018, it would not have directed the trial court to deliver judgment by 31st May, 2018. Recognizing the error and the need to avoid conflicting orders, the court exercised its power to review and revised its earlier ruling by deleting the directive to the trial court to deliver judgment within a specified period. The court emphasized the importance of judicial consistency and the avoidance of...
Court Disposition
Application for review allowed in part; previous order directing delivery of judgment deleted.
Orders
- The court's ruling dated 2nd May, 2018 is revised by deleting the second sentence of paragraph 2 thereof from the words 'what I can say ….' to 'before 31. 05. 2018'.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
22 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT KAKAMEGA
CRIMINAL DIVISION
REVISION CASE NO. 4 OF 2018
FRANCIS INGOSI............................................................APPELLANT
VERSUS
REPUBLIC.....................................................................RESPONDENT
R U L I N G
1. On 14th February, 2018, the applicant filed a Notice of Motion dated 12th February, 2018 seeking revision of his bond terms; on the ground that the bond terms granted by the trial court were oppressive and a violation of the applicant’s fundamental and constitutional rights. The applicant also swore an affidavit in which he reiterated the grounds on the face of the application.
2. Upon due consideration of the application, this court rendered its ruling on 2nd May, 2018 rejecting the application for review. An order was also made to return the original file to Mumias Principal Magistrate’s court with directions to that court to expedite delivery of judgment in order to prevent the applicant from staying in remand for long.
3. Yesterday, 22nd May, 2018 the applicant filed another application under certificate of urgency asking this court to review its ruling rendered on 2nd May, 2018 on grounds that there was another order made by Hon. Mr. Justice J. Njagi on 11th October, 2017 arresting judgment in Mumias Principal Magistrate criminal case No. 949 of 2011 pending the hearing and determination of petition No. 12 of 2017. The applicant alleges that the two orders issued by the High court are conflicting and not in the interest of justice. In the mind of the applicant, there is an error apparent on the face of the record.
4. The application is opposed Mr. Ngetich for the state submitted that the applicant’s application is mischievous and is an abuse of the process of the court and is made tin bad faith. Further, that the applicant has not given any cogent reason why the judgment should be arrested. Counsel urged the court to dismiss the application.
5. I have now carefully considered the application as filed and the submissions made. While noting that the applicant is being mischievous in litigating his matter piecemeal, I note that there is an order of this court arresting the delivery of judgement in Mumias SMP Criminal Case No.; 949 of 2011. Republic – vs- Joseph Mukabana Ngoche and Francis Kaburu Ingosi pending determination of the petition. If this court had been made aware of the said order when it wrote its ruling of 2nd May, 2018, the direction to the trial court to deliver judgment by 31st May, 2018 would not have been made.
6. In the circumstances, the court’s ruling dated 2nd May, 2018 and particularly paragraph 2 thereof is revised by deleting therefrom the second sentence of that paragraph from the words “what I can say …….”to “before 31. 05. 2018”
It is so ordered
Ruling delivered dated and signed in open court at Kakamega this 23rd day of May, 2018
RUTH N. SITATI
JUDGE
In the presence of:-
………Mr. manyoni ..................................for Applicant
……....Mr. Ngetich....................................for Respondent
…....…Polycap..........................................court Assistant