[2014] KEHC 3376 (KLR)

[2014] KEHC 3376 (KLR)

The High Court found that the trial magistrate erred in refusing the prosecution's application to withdraw the charges against the applicants on the ground that the application was premature. Both Section 87(a) of the Criminal Procedure Code and Article 157(6)(c) of the Constitution empower the Director of Public...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2014] KEHC 3376 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: Harun Leteipa; Applicant: Evans Ruto; Applicant: David Koko; Respondent: Republic
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Kericho
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Criminal Revision 5 of 2014
Procedural Posture
Criminal Revision / Ruling on Revision
Outcome
Application for revision allowed; subordinate court's order set aside; applicants discharged.
Judges
JK Sergon
Legal Topics
Withdrawal of Criminal Charges, Powers of Director of Public Prosecutions, Supervisory Jurisdiction, Court Discretion
Source Language
en
Criminal Law Civil Procedure Withdrawal of Criminal Charges Powers of Director of Public Prosecutions Supervisory Jurisdiction Court Discretion

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 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Harun Leteipa

Applicant

Evans Ruto

Applicant

David Koko

Applicant

Republic

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Revision / Ruling on Revision

  1. 1 Whether the trial magistrate properly exercised discretion in refusing the prosecution's application to withdraw charges under Section 87(a) of the Criminal Procedure Code.
  2. 2 Whether the High Court should revise the subordinate court's order and permit withdrawal of the charges against the applicants.

Ratio Decidendi

The High Court found that the trial magistrate erred in refusing the prosecution's application to withdraw the charges against the applicants on the ground that the application was premature. Both Section 87(a) of the Criminal Procedure Code and Article 157(6)(c) of the Constitution empower the Director of Public Prosecutions to discontinue a prosecution before judgment, subject to the court's permission. The law does not specify grounds for refusal, and the magistrate's reasoning was not supported by statute or constitutional provision. The High Court, exercising its supervisory jurisdiction under Sections 362 and 364 of the Criminal Procedure Code, set aside the subordinate court's...

Court Disposition

Application for revision allowed; subordinate court's order set aside; applicants discharged.

Orders

  • The order disallowing the prosecution’s request to withdraw the case is set aside.
  • The Director of Public Prosecutions is permitted to discontinue the prosecution of the applicants.