[2002] KECA 255 (KLR)
The Court of Appeal held that the High Court lacked jurisdiction to revise an order of acquittal made by a subordinate court under section 202 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The express language of section 364(1)(b) prohibits the High Court from altering or reversing an order of acquittal in revision. Furthermore,...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2002] KECA 255 (KLR)
- Parties
- Appellant: Justine Gachoki Ndegwa; Appellant: Paul Njogu Kiberia; Respondent: Republic
- Court
- Court of Appeal
- Court Station
- Court of Appeal at Nairobi
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Criminal Appeal 20 of 1999
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Appeal / Appeal From High Court Revision Order
- Outcome
- appeal allowed; high court revision order set aside
- Judges
- JE Gicheru, D Ole Keiwua
- Legal Topics
- Revision Jurisdiction, Acquittal Orders, Magistrates Court Powers, High Court Powers, Appeal Vs Revision, Criminal Procedure Code
- 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
Justine Gachoki Ndegwa
Appellant
Paul Njogu Kiberia
Appellant
Republic
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal From High Court Revision Order
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the High Court had jurisdiction to revise an order of acquittal made by a subordinate court under section 202 of the Criminal Procedure Code.
- 2 Whether section 364(1)(b) of the Criminal Procedure Code bars the High Court from revising an order of acquittal.
- 3 Whether section 364(5) of the Criminal Procedure Code precludes revision proceedings when an appeal lies but is not brought.
Ratio Decidendi
The Court of Appeal held that the High Court lacked jurisdiction to revise an order of acquittal made by a subordinate court under section 202 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The express language of section 364(1)(b) prohibits the High Court from altering or reversing an order of acquittal in revision. Furthermore, section 364(5) precludes revision proceedings at the instance of a party who could have appealed but did not. The superior court's order setting aside the acquittal was therefore made without jurisdiction and was a nullity. The appeal was allowed and the High Court's order was set aside.
Court Disposition
appeal allowed; high court revision order set aside
Orders
- The appeal is allowed.
- The order of the High Court dated 25 September 1998 is set aside.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
38 paragraphs
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL AT NAIROBI
(CORAM: GICHERU, LAKHA & OLE KEIWUA, JJ.A.)
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 20 OF 1999
BETWEEN
JUSTINE GACHOKI NDEGWA ......... 1ST APPELLANT
PAUL NJOGU KIBERIA ..................... 2ND APPELLANT
AND
REPUBLIC ................................................RESPONDENT
(Appeal from a revision order of the High Court of Kenya at Nairobi (Hon. Mr. Justice H.P.G. Waweru) dated 25th September, 1998
in
High Court Criminal Revision No. 18 of 1997)
*********************
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
This is an appeal by the appellants against an Order which the superior court (Waweru, J.) purported to make on 25 September 1998 in revision setting aside the Order of acquittal of the Senior Resident Magistrate's Court at Kerugoya on 27 March 1997 .
The appellants with eleven others were, on 3 May 1996 charged before the said court with the offence of murder contrary to section 203 as read with section 204 of the Penal Code in that on the night of 2 and 3 April 1996 at Kimunye Village in Kirinyaga District they jointly murdered one STANLEY KIMOTHO.
Between 3 May 1996 and 27 March 1997 the 13 accused persons appeared before the Court to be furnished with committal documents. But these were never produced to the Court or served upon the 13 accused persons. The learned Senior Resident Magistrate acquitted all the accused persons under section 202 of the Criminal Procedure Code as the prosecutor could not proceed without the committal documents.
The Director of Public Prosecution, by a letter of 21 May 1997 applied to the superior court for that order to be revised. Eventually, on 25 September 1998 the superior court held that the lower court acted in exercise of jurisdiction that it did not have and the order in effect was a nullity in law. He, therefore, in the exercise of his revisional jurisdiction reversed the order of the lower court made on 27March 1997 .
The appellants have now appealed to this Court and Mr. Gathenji for the appellants contended, firstly, that the superior court had no jurisdiction to revise the Order of acquittal in the face of clear and express words ofsection 364 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Code, Cap. 75, which provides as follows:-
"364. (1) In the case of a proceeding in a subordinate court the record of which has been called for or which has been reported for orders, or which otherwise comes to its knowledge, the High Court may -
(a)in the case of a conviction, exercise any of the powers conferred on it as a court of appeal by sections 354, 357 and 358, and may enhance the sentence;
(b)in the case of any other order than an order of acquittal, alter or reverse the order.
Having carefully considered the provisions of section 364(1)(b) , we are satisfied that Mr. Gathenji's argument is well founded. We find no difficulty in view of the unambiguous words of the said section in accepting his submission.
It was also additionally contended that the superior court had no jurisdiction to make the revisional order in the instant case as it contravened section
364(5) of the Code which states:- "364. (5)when an appeal lies from a finding, sentence or order, and no appeal is brough t, no proceeding by way of revision shall be entertained at the insistence of the party who could have appealed".
In our judgment, with respect, this is a clear bar and the learned judge erred in failing to give any effect to it.We heard Mr. Okumu for the respondent with interest but were not persuaded that in view of the above express statutory provisions the order made by the superior court can be upheld.
We are, therefore, compelled to allow the appeal on the ground that the superior court had no jurisdiction to make the order in revision which it did. Accordingly, the Order of the superior court given on 25 September 1998 is set aside.
Dated and delivered at Nairobi this 2nd day of August, 2002.
J.E. GICHERU
...................
JUDGE OF APPEAL
A.A. LAKHA
...................
JUDGE OF APPEAL
M OLE KEIWUA
...................
JUDGE OF APPEAL
I certify that this is a true copy of the original.
DEPUTY REGISTRAR