[2014] KEHC 3347 (KLR)
The court held that the application for revision was incompetent and premature for two reasons: first, the proceedings of the lower court had not been availed, making it impossible for the High Court to exercise its revisionary jurisdiction; second, Section 364(5) of the Criminal Procedure Code expressly bars the...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2014] KEHC 3347 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Jason Charles Chore; Respondent: Republic
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Kericho
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Criminal Revision 7 of 2014
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Revision / Ruling on Application for Revision
- Outcome
- Application for revision struck out as incompetent and premature.
- Judges
- JK Sergon
- Legal Topics
- Revision Jurisdiction, Fair Trial Rights, Right to Counsel
- 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
Jason Charles Chore
Applicant
Republic
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Criminal Revision / Ruling on Application for Revision
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the High Court can entertain a revision application where the applicant had a right of appeal.
- 2 Whether the absence of lower court proceedings precludes the High Court from exercising revisionary jurisdiction.
- 3 Whether denial of adjournment and lack of counsel representation amounted to an unfair trial.
Ratio Decidendi
The court held that the application for revision was incompetent and premature for two reasons: first, the proceedings of the lower court had not been availed, making it impossible for the High Court to exercise its revisionary jurisdiction; second, Section 364(5) of the Criminal Procedure Code expressly bars the High Court from entertaining revision proceedings at the instance of a party who could have appealed as of right. Since the applicant, through his advocate, had the right to appeal the decision of the trial court, he was precluded from seeking revision. The court therefore declined to exercise its supervisory powers and struck out the application.
Court Disposition
Application for revision struck out as incompetent and premature.
Orders
- The revision application is struck out.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
17 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT KERICHO
CRIMINAL REVISION NO.7 OF 2014
(Review on Judgment of Kericho CM Criminal Case No.851 of 2011
– Hon. L. Kiniale – Ag. Senior Resident Magistrate delivered on 24th June 2014)
JASON CHARLES CHORE - APPLICANT
VERSUS
REPUBLIC - RESPONDENT
RULING ON REVISON
Jason Charles Chore, hereinafter referred to as the Applicant, through the firm of Motanya & Co. Advocates, wrote the letter dated 19th June 2014, in which he complained that he did not get a fair trial before Hon. Kiniale, learned Resident Magistrate vide Kericho CM Criminal Case number 851 of 2011. He raised two complaints: First, that the trial magistrate unfairly denied him an adjournment and secondly, that he was forced to proceed for hearing without counsel representation when his advocate withdrew from acting for him. Pursuant to the aforesaid letter, this revision file was opened.
Let me from the outset state that the revision file before this court is not properly and competently before this court for two reasons. First, the proceedings relating to the above mentioned case have not been placed before this court to enable it exercise its revisionary power. The second challenge is the Provisions of Section 364(5) of the Criminal Procedure Code in which this court is barred from entertaining any proceeding by way of revision at the insistence of the party who could have appealed as a matter of right on a finding, sentence or order. It is apparent from the contents of the letter that Mr. Motanya, the author is still retained as the applicant’s advocate. There is no doubt that being the accused’s agent, he is bound by the provisions of Section 364(5) of the Criminal Procedure Code. For the above reasons I find the revision premature and incompetently before this court. I decline to exercise my supervisory power of revision and instead order that the revision be struck out.
Dated, signed and delivered in open court this 24th day of July 2014.
J. K. SERGON
JUDGE
In the presence of:
Miss. Kivali for Director of Public Prosecutions.
Mr. Motanya for Applicant