[1987] KECA 33 (KLR)
The Court of Appeal held that it lacked jurisdiction to entertain the application for stay because the matter was not properly before it as an appeal. Rule 1(3) of the Court of Appeal Rules, which deals with the court's inherent powers, does not itself confer jurisdiction but only allows the court to exercise such...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [1987] KECA 33 (KLR)
- Parties
- Appellant: Muyonga; Respondent: Republic
- Court
- Court of Appeal
- Court Station
- Court of Appeal at Nairobi
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Criminal Appeal 9 of 1987
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Application / Application for Stay Pending Appeal
- Outcome
- Application struck out for want of jurisdiction.
- Legal Topics
- Jurisdiction of Appellate Court, Inherent Powers of Court, Stay of Proceedings
- 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
Muyonga
Appellant
Republic
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Criminal Application / Application for Stay Pending Appeal
Legal Issues
- 1 Does the Court of Appeal have jurisdiction to entertain an application for stay of proceedings in a criminal matter not properly before it?
- 2 Can the court invoke its inherent powers under rule 1(3) to grant the orders sought?
- 3 Is the principle of substantial justice applicable where the court lacks jurisdiction?
Ratio Decidendi
The Court of Appeal held that it lacked jurisdiction to entertain the application for stay because the matter was not properly before it as an appeal. Rule 1(3) of the Court of Appeal Rules, which deals with the court's inherent powers, does not itself confer jurisdiction but only allows the court to exercise such powers in matters properly before it. Since the application was not within the court's jurisdiction, the court could not invoke the principle of substantial justice or grant the orders sought. The application was therefore incompetent and was struck out.
Court Disposition
Application struck out for want of jurisdiction.
Orders
- The application is struck out as incompetent.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
16 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF KENYA
AT NAIROBI
Criminal Application No NAI 9 of 1987
Muyonga …………………….APPELLANTS
VERSUS
REPUBLIC…………….……RESPONDENT
Judgment.
November 10, 1987, Nyarangi, Platt & Apaloo JJA delivered the following Judgment.
This matter raises the question whether the court has jurisdiction to entertain it. The applicant seeks to stay the hearing of the R.Ms court criminal case number 2826 of 1985 against the applicant now pending before Ang’awa (Miss), senior resident magistrate Nairobi, until the hearing and disposal of an appeal challenging the orders of the High Court (Aragon J) in the High Court miscellaneous criminal application number 379 of 1987.
It is common ground that in the middle of the trial before the magistrate, the applicant alleged that the trial magistrate had shown bias against him. An application under section 81 of the Criminal Procedure Code, for an order to transfer the case to another criminal court was heard and refused by Mr Justice Aragon.
We were much pressed by Mr Adala for the respondent to invoke the jurisdiction under rule 1(3) of the rules of this court. We do not consider it necessary to encumber this ruling citation of numerous authorities.
We can feel no doubt that rule 1(3) concerns inherent powers exercisable in an appeal which is properly before the court. Rule 1(3) cannot and does not confer jurisdiction. We derive some comfort from an earlier decision of the predecessor of this court in East African Railways corporation v Hugges Ltd, Civil Application No 37 of 1974 (unreported).
The only remaining point is that Mr Adala urged us to deal with the matter on the bais of substantial justice. We decline for a simple reason and a good reason: without jurisdiction, there is no basis for applying the principle of substantial justice.
It was accepted by counsel that rule 31 relates to appeals before the court. For these reasons, the matter is incompetent and is struck out.
Order accordingly.