[2012] KEHC 3474 (KLR)
The court found that while the mere administrative connection between the complainant and the trial court would not alone justify transfer, the combination of factors—including the unusual fast-tracking of the case, the court's insistence on proceeding despite defence counsel's unavailability, and the failure to...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2012] KEHC 3474 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Kipesha Lawrent Mlondwa; Respondent: Republic
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Mombasa
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Criminal Miscellaneous Application 31 of 2012
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Motion to Transfer Criminal Case
- Outcome
- Application partially allowed; criminal case to be transferred to Mombasa Law Courts; no order as to costs.
- Judges
- JV Juma
- Legal Topics
- Transfer of Criminal Cases, Right to Fair Trial, Judicial Bias, Venue of Trial
- 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
Kipesha Lawrent Mlondwa
Applicant
Republic
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Criminal Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Motion to Transfer Criminal Case
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the applicant is likely to receive a fair trial at Wundanyi Law Courts given the administrative connection to the complainant.
- 2 Whether the circumstances justify the transfer of the criminal case to a neutral venue.
- 3 Whether the failure to supply defence counsel with statements before trial infringes the applicant's right to a fair trial.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that while the mere administrative connection between the complainant and the trial court would not alone justify transfer, the combination of factors—including the unusual fast-tracking of the case, the court's insistence on proceeding despite defence counsel's unavailability, and the failure to supply prosecution statements—created a real apprehension of bias and risked undermining the applicant's right to a fair trial. To uphold the principle that justice must be seen to be done, the court determined it was imperative to transfer the trial to a neutral venue, specifically the Mombasa Law Courts.
Court Disposition
Application partially allowed; criminal case to be transferred to Mombasa Law Courts; no order as to costs.
Orders
- Wundanyi Criminal Case No. 133 of 2012 is to be transferred to Mombasa Law Courts for hearing and determination.
- No order as to costs.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
21 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA
AT MOMBASA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION 31 OF 2012
KIPESHA LAWRENT MLONDWA …………....…………..……. APPLICANT
=VERSUS=
REPUBLIC …………………….………….….………………... RESPONDENT
RULING
Before me is the Notice of Motion application brought under Certificate of Urgency by the Applicant KIPESHA LAWRENT MLONDWA seeking inter alia the following orders:
“(a) THAT this application be certified as urgent and service be dispensed with in the first instance.
(b) THAT there be a stay of proceedings in Wundanyi criminal Case No. 133 of 2012 pending the hearing and determination of this application.
(c)THAT the Honourable Court be pleased to transfer Wundanyi Criminal Case No. 133 of 2012 to Mombasa Law Courts.
(d)THAT costs be in the cause”
MR. AMBWEREAdvocate argued the motion on behalf of the Applicant whilst MR. TANUI learned State Counsel opposed the same. Prayers (a) and (b) having already been dealt with ex-parte, this court now has to consider prayers (c) and (d). The basis of this application is a criminal case namely Wundanyi Criminal case No. 133/2012 REPUBLIC –VS- KIPESHA LAWRENT MLONDWA in which the Applicant is the accused and the complainant is the Principal Magistrate at Taveta Law Courts. In his supporting affidavit the Applicant avers that he is apprehensive that he may not be accorded a fair trial at the Wundanyi Law Courts which administratively falls under the Principal Magistrate at Taveta Law courts. This fact on its own would not have been sufficient to persuade me to consider this application. However certain other factors averred to in the Applicant’s supporting affidavit do raise concern. Firstly it appears clear that the case at Wundanyi is being fast-tracked at the instance of some person or persons. It is not common practice for a criminal matter to be mentioned several times within the same week.
The other matter raising concern is the fact that the court in Wundanyi seemed determined to proceed to hear the matter notwithstanding the fact that the dates given were not convenient to the Applicant’s advocate and also notwithstanding the fact that copies of statements had not yet been supplied to the defence lawyer. It is a legal requirement that these statements be supplied to defence counsel before the commencement of any trial and failure to ensure that this is done means that an accused person will be denied his rights to a fair trial. On the whole I am satisfied that the Applicant’s apprehensions are real. It is an important tenet of law that justice must not only be done but must manifestly be seen to be done. The mere appearance of bias even if no bias actually exists is enough to sour a trial. In order to avoid this I do feel that it is imperative that this trial be conducted in a neutral court such as Mombasa. I therefore allow prayer (c) of this application as prayed. No order as to costs.
Dated and Delivered in Mombasa this 22nd day of June 2012.
M. ODERO
JUDGE
In the presence of:
Mr. Ambwere for Applicant
Mr. Tanui for State