[2015] KEHC 2847 (KLR)
The court held that there was no good or just reason to interfere with the Applicant's ongoing trial in the lower court. The proper time to challenge the order placing the Applicant on his defence, particularly on the ground that prosecution witnesses were not recalled as demanded, would be after the conclusion of...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2015] KEHC 2847 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Joram Kiarie Njuguna; Respondent: Republic
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Murang'a
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Criminal Revision 21 of 2014
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Revision / Ruling on Application for Revision of Order Placing Accused on Defence
- Outcome
- application dismissed
- Judges
- DW Mbuteti
- Legal Topics
- Criminal Trial Procedure, Recall of Witnesses, Section 200 Criminal Procedure Code, Revision Jurisdiction, Prima Facie Case
- 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
Joram Kiarie Njuguna
Applicant
Republic
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Criminal Revision / Ruling on Application for Revision of Order Placing Accused on Defence
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the High Court should revise and quash the order placing the Applicant on his defence in the lower court.
- 2 Whether failure to recall prosecution witnesses under section 200 of the Criminal Procedure Code vitiates the trial at this stage.
Ratio Decidendi
The court held that there was no good or just reason to interfere with the Applicant's ongoing trial in the lower court. The proper time to challenge the order placing the Applicant on his defence, particularly on the ground that prosecution witnesses were not recalled as demanded, would be after the conclusion of the trial and in the event of a conviction, through an appeal. The court emphasized that the revisionary jurisdiction should not be used to prematurely terminate a trial or to quash interlocutory orders unless there is a clear miscarriage of justice, which was not demonstrated in this case. The Applicant's rights would be preserved by allowing the trial to proceed to its logical...
Court Disposition
application dismissed
Orders
- The application for revision is dismissed.
- The Applicant's trial in the lower court shall proceed to its logical conclusion.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
16 paragraphs
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA
AT MURANG’A
CRIMINAL REVISION NO 21 OF 2014
(From an order in Kigumo SPM Criminal Case No 131 of 2013 by which the Applicant was placed on his defence in his criminal trial)
JORAM KIARIE NJUGUNA……………..APPLICANT
VERSUS
REPUBLIC….……………………….REPONDENT
R U L I N G
1. The Applicant is an accused in the lower court where he is being tried for an offence he has not specified. Apparently at some point during his trial the trial magistrate was transferred to another station and another one took over the trial under section 200 of the Criminal Procedure Code, Cap 75. It would appear further that the Applicant demanded, as he was entitled to do, for recall of the witnesses who had already testified before the outgoing trial magistrate, and the necessary order for recall of those witnesses was made by the new trial magistrate. As it happened, and for reasons as yet unknown to this court, those witnesses never appeared before the trial court as ordered. Eventually the prosecution closed its case and the Applicant was placed on his defence upon the trial court finding that he had a case to answer.
2. The Applicant was aggrieved by the said order that placed him on his defence, and he applied to this court by notice of motion dated 01/07/2014 for an order of revision in respect thereof under section 364 of the Criminal Procedure Code. He wants the order placing him to his defence quashed so that he can be acquitted without being placed on his defence. The Republic opposes that application.
3. I find no good or just reason to interfere with the Accused’s trial in the lower court. This court can gauge whether there was a prima faciecase established by the prosecution in his trial to require him to be placed on his defence only in a proper appeal against his conviction, should there be one. The Applicant should wait until his trial is completed, and in the event that he is convicted, he will have the liberty to appeal against the conviction. In that event one of his strong grounds of appeal will be that prosecution witnesses were not recalled as he had demanded under section 200 of the Criminal Procedure Code. Let us cross that bridge when we get there. For all we know he might be acquitted, and then he will have no cause to complain against the order placing him on his defence.
4. In the circumstances, I decline the order of revision sought. The application is dismissed. I direct that the Applicant’s trial in the lower court do proceed to its logical conclusion. It is so ordered.
DATED AND SIGNED AT MURANG’A THIS 23RD DAY OF JUNE 2015
H P G WAWERU
JUDGE
DELIVERED AT MURANG’A THIS 26TH DAY OF JUNE 2015