[2009] KEHC 232 (KLR)

[2009] KEHC 232 (KLR)

The court found that the applicant's constitutional right to be arraigned before court within 14 days of arrest was violated, as the State did not provide any explanation for the delay. However, the Constitution does not provide that such a violation automatically entitles the accused to an acquittal or quashing of...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2009] KEHC 232 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: Jacktone Congo; Respondent: Republic
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Kakamega
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Judgment Date
8 October 2009
Case Number
Miscellaneous Criminal Application 57 of 2009
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Criminal Application / Ruling on Constitutional Rights Violation Application
Outcome
application dismissed
Legal Topics
Pre Trial Rights, Right to Liberty, Unlawful Detention, Compensation for Rights Violation
Source Language
english
Constitutional Law Criminal Law Pre Trial Rights Right to Liberty Unlawful Detention Compensation for Rights Violation

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Jacktone Congo

Applicant

Republic

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Miscellaneous Criminal Application / Ruling on Constitutional Rights Violation Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant's constitutional right to be arraigned in court within 14 days of arrest was violated.
  2. 2 Whether violation of pre-trial constitutional rights entitles the applicant to an acquittal and quashing of charges.
  3. 3 Whether the applicant is entitled to compensation for violation of constitutional rights.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicant's constitutional right to be arraigned before court within 14 days of arrest was violated, as the State did not provide any explanation for the delay. However, the Constitution does not provide that such a violation automatically entitles the accused to an acquittal or quashing of charges. Instead, the appropriate remedy is for the applicant to seek compensation from those responsible for the violation. The criminal proceedings against the applicant are to proceed, and the application for quashing the charge is dismissed.

Court Disposition

application dismissed

Orders

  • The application is dismissed.
  • The applicant is at liberty to claim compensation from the violators of his rights.