[1999] KEHC 92 (KLR)
The court determined that the criminal revision matter was improperly heard by a single judge, contrary to Section 366 of the Criminal Procedure Code, which mandates that such matters be heard by two judges. This procedural irregularity necessitated that the matter be placed before the Duty Judge for a fresh hearing...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [1999] KEHC 92 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: K. Brahmbhatt and 2 Others; Respondent: Republic
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- ? 5 of 1997
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Revision / Order on Procedural Irregularity
- Outcome
- Matter to be heard de novo before two judges.
- Legal Topics
- Criminal Revision Procedure, Composition of Bench, Procedural Irregularity
- 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
K. Brahmbhatt and 2 Others
Applicant
Republic
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Criminal Revision / Order on Procedural Irregularity
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the matter ought to have been heard by two judges instead of one as required by law.
- 2 Whether the proceedings conducted by a single judge were procedurally proper.
Ratio Decidendi
The court determined that the criminal revision matter was improperly heard by a single judge, contrary to Section 366 of the Criminal Procedure Code, which mandates that such matters be heard by two judges. This procedural irregularity necessitated that the matter be placed before the Duty Judge for a fresh hearing (de novo) before a properly constituted bench of two judges. The court exercised its inherent jurisdiction to correct the procedural defect and ensure compliance with statutory requirements for the composition of the bench in criminal revision proceedings.
Court Disposition
Matter to be heard de novo before two judges.
Orders
- The matter shall be placed before the Duty Judge for hearing de novo before two judges.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
8 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT NAIROBI CRIMINAL REVISION NO. 5 OF 1997
K. BRAHMBHATT AND 2 OTHERS ..........................APPLICANTS VERSUS REPUBLIC .............................................RESPONDENT
O R D E R
Upon further consideration of this Revision matter, I am satisfied that the matter should have in the first instance been heard by Two Judges of the Superior Court, as opposed to One Judge as was the case and pursuant to Section 366 of the Criminal Procedure Code.
On that ground, I hereby order that this matter be placed before the Duty Judge for it to be heard De Novo before Two Judges.
Dated and delivered at Nairobi this 12th day of March 1999.
E. OWUOR
JUDGE OF APPEAL