[2006] KEHC 2294 (KLR)
The court found that although allowing a phone to ring in court is contemptuous and disruptive, the applicant was not given an opportunity to be heard before the punitive order was made. This violated the principles of natural justice and the right to a fair hearing. Consequently, the magistrate's order to...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2006] KEHC 2294 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Joseph O. Opondo; Respondent: Republic
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Mombasa
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Criminal Appeal 306 of 2006
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Revision / Ruling
- Outcome
- application allowed; magistrate's order set aside
- Legal Topics
- Contempt of Court, Courtroom Conduct, Right to Be Heard
- 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
Joseph O. Opondo
Applicant
Republic
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Criminal Revision / Ruling
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the applicant was denied an opportunity to be heard before the confiscation and auction of his mobile phone.
- 2 Whether the magistrate's order to sell the applicant's phone without hearing him was lawful.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that although allowing a phone to ring in court is contemptuous and disruptive, the applicant was not given an opportunity to be heard before the punitive order was made. This violated the principles of natural justice and the right to a fair hearing. Consequently, the magistrate's order to confiscate and auction the phone was set aside, and the phone was ordered to be returned to the applicant. The court emphasized that future similar conduct could result in more severe consequences, including imprisonment.
Court Disposition
application allowed; magistrate's order set aside
Orders
- The magistrate's order of 18th April 2006 is revised and set aside.
- The mobile phone is to be returned to the applicant.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
12 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT MOMBASA
Criminal Revision 306 of 2006
ORIGINAL MSA CR. CASE NO. 4606 OF 2005
JOSEPH O. OPONDO………………….........................................………….APPLICANT
VERSUS
REPUBLIC……………………......................................………………… RESPONDENT
RULING
When J. B. Mdivo RM was hearing CMCr.C No. 4606 of 2006, Joseph Okello went into her court, as he says, to swear an affidavit before her. His telephone rang and the learned Resident Magistrate had it confiscated and ordered that it be sold by public auction and the proceeds thereof be deposited in the Poor Box. The Applicant has moved this court to revise that order and set it aside.
I have perused the proceedings in that case and it would appear that the Applicant was not accorded an opportunity to explain why he did not switch off his phone when in court. It is not only irritating but also contempt of court when anyone allows his or her phone to ring when the court is in session. However before taking any action the court should accord such person an opportunity to be heard. That having not been done in this case I hereby revise and set aside the learned magistrate’s order of 18th April 2006 and order that the mobile phone be returned to the Applicant. The Applicant should, however, understand that it is contempt of court to interrupt court proceedings and if he again allows his telephone to ring in court he may easily end up in jail.
DATED and delivered this 15th day of May 2006.
D. K. MARAGA
JUDGE