[2006] KEHC 1764 (KLR)
The court found that the applicant's allegations of not being provided with witness statements and the trial proceeding in his absence were not supported by the record. The trial file demonstrated that the applicant was present during proceedings and had opportunities to cross-examine witnesses. On occasions when...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2006] KEHC 1764 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Francis Muiruri Kangethe; Respondent: Republic
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Criminal Miscellaneous Application 310 of 2006
- Procedural Posture
- Miscellaneous Application / Ruling
- Outcome
- Application dismissed; no orders granted as no prayers were sought.
- Judges
- CJ Kendagor
- Legal Topics
- Fair Trial Rights, Witness Statements Disclosure, Trial in Absentia, Adjournment Practice
- 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 Muiruri Kangethe
Applicant
Republic
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the applicant was denied witness statements and a fair opportunity to participate in the trial.
- 2 Whether the trial proceeded in the absence of the applicant.
- 3 Whether the application, which sought no specific prayers, could be granted any relief.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the applicant's allegations of not being provided with witness statements and the trial proceeding in his absence were not supported by the record. The trial file demonstrated that the applicant was present during proceedings and had opportunities to cross-examine witnesses. On occasions when the applicant was absent, it was due to his own refusal to attend court. Since the application did not seek any specific prayers, the court held that it could not grant any relief. The court further observed that the applicant appeared to be deliberately delaying the proceedings and cautioned the trial court against allowing unnecessary adjournments, emphasizing the need for...
Court Disposition
Application dismissed; no orders granted as no prayers were sought.
Orders
- No relief granted as the application sought no specific prayers.
- Trial court advised to avoid unnecessary adjournments and to finalize the retrial expeditiously.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
20 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT NAIROBI (NAIROBI LAW COURTS)
Misc Crim Appli 310 of 2006
FRANCIS MUIRURI KANGETHE…………….........................................……………..APPLICANT
VERSUS
REPUBLIC ……………………..……………….......................................…………..RESPONDENT
R U L I N G
The Applicant’s application dated 8th June 2006 seeks no prayers at all. However, from the supporting affidavit he seems to be saying that he has lost confidence with the trial court on grounds that he has not been given statements of witnesses and on allegation that the case proceeded in his absence.
The State put in a replying affidavit in which the Applicant’s allegations were denied.
I have the trial file with me and I see from it that the trial has proceeded in the Applicant’s presence all along and opportunity to cross-examine witnesses granted to him. The record appears to suggest that the Applicant had in few occasions refused to go to the court room for hearing. That is demonstrated at the beginning of the trial where one Mrs. Muchira was allocated the case for hearing and subsequently before Mrs. Wasilwa when the case was later allocated to her. During those occasions the hearing did not proceed. The Applicant’s allegations are not supported by the record.
Since the Appellant has made no prayers, none can be granted. I must however comment that the Applicant seems to be a malingerer and seems bent to delay the finalization of the case even though he is not the only one to blame. The trial court is advised not to allow unnecessary adjournments especially by the prosecution who from the record have had their day in court.
The matter should be heard and finalized expeditiously especially because it is a retrial.
Those are the orders of his court.
Dated at Nairobi this 12th day July 2006.
LESIIT, J.
JUDGE
Read signed and delivered in the presence of;
Applicant in person
Mr. Makura for the State/Respondent
LESIIT, J.
JUDGE