[2013] KEHC 3172 (KLR)

[2013] KEHC 3172 (KLR)

The court held that while Section 387(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code allows a magistrate to form an opinion and issue warrants of arrest if an offence is disclosed during an inquest, the magistrate must then proceed with the inquiry de novo as if taking cognizance of the offence. In this case, the magistrate...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2013] KEHC 3172 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: George Kavita Mutemwa and 2 others; Respondent: Republic
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Machakos
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Criminal Revision 331 of 2011
Procedural Posture
Criminal Revision / Ruling on Revision
Outcome
Order for warrants of arrest set aside; inquest to proceed before another magistrate.
Judges
BT Jaden
Legal Topics
Inquest Procedure, Magistrate Jurisdiction, Powers of Director of Public Prosecutions
Source Language
en
Criminal Law Civil Procedure Inquest Procedure Magistrate Jurisdiction Powers of Director of Public Prosecutions

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 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

George Kavita Mutemwa and 2 others

Applicant

Republic

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Revision / Ruling on Revision

  1. 1 Whether the magistrate had jurisdiction to issue warrants of arrest and direct arraignment before the High Court based on evidence adduced in an inquest.
  2. 2 Whether the magistrate was required to hear all witnesses before forming an opinion under Section 387(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code.
  3. 3 Whether the magistrate should have referred the matter to the Director of Public Prosecutions instead of issuing warrants.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that while Section 387(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code allows a magistrate to form an opinion and issue warrants of arrest if an offence is disclosed during an inquest, the magistrate must then proceed with the inquiry de novo as if taking cognizance of the offence. In this case, the magistrate exceeded jurisdiction by ordering the arrest and arraignment of the named persons before the High Court without following the prescribed procedure. The magistrate should have recorded an opinion and referred the matter to the Director of Public Prosecutions, who alone has the constitutional mandate to institute criminal proceedings. The order for issuance of warrants of arrest was...

Court Disposition

Order for warrants of arrest set aside; inquest to proceed before another magistrate.

Orders

  • The order for issuance of warrants of arrest for the three named persons for arraignment in court is set aside.
  • The inquest is to proceed before any other magistrate.