[2012] KEHC 5836 (KLR)
The High Court found that the matter was a straightforward administrative issue that should have been resolved by the magistrate in charge of Naivasha Law Courts. Given the applicant's provision of cash bail on behalf of the accused, and the subsequent acquittal of the accused persons, the applicant is entitled to a...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2012] KEHC 5836 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: John Hari Gakinya t/a Hari Gakinya & Co. Advocates; Respondent: Chief Magistrate Naivasha Law Courts
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nakuru
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Miscellaneous Criminal Application 173 of 2012
- Procedural Posture
- Miscellaneous Criminal Application / Ruling on Supervisory Jurisdiction Application
- Outcome
- Application allowed with directions.
- Judges
- DO Ohungo
- Legal Topics
- Supervisory Jurisdiction, Cash Bail Refund, Court Records Management
- 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
John Hari Gakinya t/a Hari Gakinya & Co. Advocates
Applicant
Chief Magistrate Naivasha Law Courts
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Criminal Application / Ruling on Supervisory Jurisdiction Application
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the High Court should exercise its supervisory jurisdiction to order production of records and refund of cash bail to the applicant.
- 2 Whether the applicant, as counsel who paid cash bail on behalf of accused persons, is entitled to a refund when the original receipt and files are missing.
Ratio Decidendi
The High Court found that the matter was a straightforward administrative issue that should have been resolved by the magistrate in charge of Naivasha Law Courts. Given the applicant's provision of cash bail on behalf of the accused, and the subsequent acquittal of the accused persons, the applicant is entitled to a refund of the cash bail. The loss of the receipt and the missing files do not negate the applicant's entitlement, especially since the respondent did not contest the application. The court directed that, upon provision of further particulars by the applicant, the relevant files be traced and forwarded to the High Court for perusal and further directions, thereby exercising its...
Court Disposition
Application allowed with directions.
Orders
- The applicant to provide the magistrate in charge of Naivasha Law Courts with better particulars, including the date of acquittal.
- The magistrate in charge to forward the two files to Nakuru High Court for perusal and further directions within 21 days.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
15 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH OF KENYA AT NAKURU
MISCELLANEOUS CRIMINAL APPLICATION 173 OF 2012
JOHN HARI GAKINYA T/A HARI GAKINYA & CO. ADV. ....………….. APPLICANT
VERSUS
CHIEF MAGISTRATE NAIVASHA LAW COURTS ……….………… RESPONDENT
RULING
The notice of motion dated 19/06/2012 is made under provisions of Section 165(6) and (7)of the Constitution praying that his court exercises its supervisory jurisdiction over the respondent by giving orders that the records relating to NAIVASHA TRAFFIC CASE NO.4220and 4221 of 2011be brought to this court for purposes of ordering refund of cash bail to the applicant in the sum of Kshs.50,000/=.
It is premised on grounds that the applicant was acting as legal counsel for the accuseds in the aforementioned matters in which the accuseds were acquitted. Applicant was absent on the day they were acquitted. The applicant counsel had paid Kshs.50,000/= on behalf of the accused persons as cash bail to secure their release and the cash bail receipt was issued in the applicant’s name.
Thereafter the cash bail receipt was re-submitted to the registry but it got lost or misplaced. Meanwhile the files relating to the matter could also not be traced. Since October 2011 the Respondent has not produced the lost files nor refunded the cash bail.
The accused persons in the Traffic matters were CHARLES MACHARIA MWANGI and JOHANA WATENE in Traffic Case No.4220 of 2011 and 4221 of 2011 respectively.
The application was served but it elicited no response. This really is a simple administrative matter which the magistrate in charge of Naivasha ought to deal with expeditiously. For purposes of clarity the advocate for applicants ought to give the magistrate in charge of Naivasha court, better particulars i.e. the date of the accused’s acquittal – I am sure that would assist with tracing the files movement. Once he does this then I direct that the two files be forwarded to Nakuru High Court for perusal and further directions within 21 days from today.
Delivered and dated this 11th day of September, 2012 at Nakuru.
H.A. OMONDI
JUDGE