[2001] KEHC 97 (KLR)

[2001] KEHC 97 (KLR)

The High Court determined that it lacked jurisdiction to entertain the applicants' appeal and application for stay of proceedings because the applicants had not been convicted and there was no statutory right of appeal at this interlocutory stage. The court found that the procedural difficulties in the lower court...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2001] KEHC 97 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: Lt. Col. J. M. Maingi; Applicant: Lt. Col. Michael Macharia; Applicant: Major Nakitare; Applicant: Capt. Ochieng Kojino; Applicant: W.O.I Isaac M. Mussigissi; Applicant: Sgt. Derick Kabie; Applicant: CPC Eyanai; Respondent: John Tito; Respondent: John Masai Kiptarus; Respondent: Nahashon Kili Kiprotich; Respondent: Moses Kiprotich Kwalia
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Nakuru
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
? 31 of 2001
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Preliminary Objection and Application for Stay
Outcome
preliminary objection sustained; petition of appeal and application struck out for want of jurisdiction
Legal Topics
Right of Appeal, Criminal Procedure Code, Jurisdiction of High Court
Source Language
en
Criminal Law Civil Procedure Right of Appeal Criminal Procedure Code Jurisdiction of High Court

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Lt. Col. J. M. Maingi

Applicant

Lt. Col. Michael Macharia

Applicant

Major Nakitare

Applicant

Capt. Ochieng Kojino

Applicant

W.O.I Isaac M. Mussigissi

Applicant

Sgt. Derick Kabie

Applicant

CPC Eyanai

Applicant

John Tito

Respondent

John Masai Kiptarus

Respondent

Nahashon Kili Kiprotich

Respondent

Moses Kiprotich Kwalia

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Preliminary Objection and Application for Stay

  1. 1 Whether the applicants have a right of appeal at this stage before conviction.
  2. 2 Whether the High Court has jurisdiction to entertain the appeal and application for stay of proceedings.
  3. 3 Whether the procedural difficulties in the lower court justify interference by the High Court.

Ratio Decidendi

The High Court determined that it lacked jurisdiction to entertain the applicants' appeal and application for stay of proceedings because the applicants had not been convicted and there was no statutory right of appeal at this interlocutory stage. The court found that the procedural difficulties in the lower court and the magistrate's order allowing the respondents to rectify the procedure were not so prejudicial as to warrant intervention. The court upheld the preliminary objection, emphasizing that appeals in criminal matters are strictly regulated by statute, and in the absence of an enabling provision, no right of appeal exists. Consequently, both the Petition of Appeal and the...

Court Disposition

preliminary objection sustained; petition of appeal and application struck out for want of jurisdiction

Orders

  • The preliminary objection is sustained and upheld.
  • Both the Petition of Appeal and the application dated 9th February, 2001 are struck out.