Alion’go v Republic (Miscellaneous Criminal Application E048 of 2026) [2026] KEHC 11885 (KLR) (29 July 2026) (Ruling)
The application failed because the High Court’s revisionary jurisdiction under sections 362 and 364 of the Criminal Procedure Code does not extend to directing administrative re-allocation of a pending criminal case, and the applicant had not first sought recusal of the trial magistrate or shown bias, impropriety,...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2026] KEHC 11885 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Fredrick Luyo Alion’go; Respondent: Republic
- Court
- High Court
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Miscellaneous Criminal Application E048 of 2026
- Procedural Posture
- Miscellaneous Criminal Application / Ruling on Application for Transfer/re Allocation of a Pending Criminal Case
- Outcome
- Application dismissed.
- Judges
- ["DR Kavedza"]
- Legal Topics
- Transfer of Criminal Case, Recusal of Trial Magistrate, Warrants of Arrest, Revisionary Jurisdiction of the High Court, Administrative Allocation of Cases
- 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
Fredrick Luyo Alion’go
Applicant
Republic
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Criminal Application / Ruling on Application for Transfer/re Allocation of a Pending Criminal Case
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the High Court has jurisdiction under sections 362 and 364 of the Criminal Procedure Code to direct re-allocation of a pending criminal case to another magistrate.
- 2 Whether the applicant established bias, impropriety, or exceptional circumstances warranting transfer of the matter.
- 3 Whether failure to seek recusal before the subordinate court rendered the application premature.
Ratio Decidendi
The application failed because the High Court’s revisionary jurisdiction under sections 362 and 364 of the Criminal Procedure Code does not extend to directing administrative re-allocation of a pending criminal case, and the applicant had not first sought recusal of the trial magistrate or shown bias, impropriety, or exceptional circumstances. The application was therefore premature and misconceived.
Court Disposition
Application dismissed.
Orders
- The Notice of Motion dated 30 March 2026 is dismissed.
- No order was made directing transfer or re-allocation of Criminal Case No. E2365 of 2024.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
Alion’go v Republic (Miscellaneous Criminal Application E048 of 2026) [2026] KEHC 11885 (KLR) (29 July 2026) (Ruling) Neutral citation: [2026] KEHC 11885 (KLR) Republic of Kenya In the High Court at Kibera Miscellaneous Criminal Application E048 of 2026 DR Kavedza, J July 29, 2026 Between Fredrick Luyo Alion’go Applicant and Republic Respondent Ruling 1.The applicant moved this Court by a Notice of Motion dated 30 March 2026 seeking, among other orders, that Criminal Case No. E2365 of 2024 be re-allocated from the trial magistrate presently seized of it to another magistrate. 2.The applicant contends that he failed to attend court on 16th February 2026 due to illness, whereupon the trial court issued warrants of arrest. He asserts that despite producing medical documentation and notwithstanding his previous attendance record, the trial court declined to lift the warrants and ordered his detention. He argues that these circumstances justify the transfer of the case to another magistrate. 3.The respondent opposes the application on the ground that the applicant has neither sought nor obtained the recusal of the trial magistrate. It is further submitted that the allocation and re-allocation of cases is an administrative function vested in the Head of Station and not a matter falling within the revisionary jurisdiction of this Court. 4.I have considered the application, the record and the applicable law. Sections 362 and 364 of the Criminal Procedure Code empower the High Court to examine the record of a subordinate court to satisfy itself as to the correctness, legality or propriety of any finding, sentence or order, and the regularity of the proceedings. Those provisions do not confer jurisdiction upon this Court to direct the administrative re-allocation of a pending criminal case in the absence of a proper legal basis. 5.In the present case, the applicant has not demonstrated any bias, impropriety or other exceptional circumstance warranting the transfer of the matter from the trial magistrate. More importantly, no application for the recusal of the trial magistrate was made before the subordinate court. In the absence of such an application and a determination thereon, there is no basis upon which this Court can intervene or direct that the matter be placed before another magistrate. The applicant has therefore invited this Court to exercise a jurisdiction that has neither arisen nor been properly invoked. 6.Accordingly, I find that the application is premature, misconceived and devoid of merit. It is hereby dismissed. Orders accordingly. RULING DATED AND DELIVERED VIRTUALLY THIS 29TH DAY OF JULY 2026________________D. KAVEDZAJUDGEIn the presence of:Ms. Cherono for the ApplicantMr. Mutuma for the RespondentKarimi Court Assistant.