[2025] KEHC 10593 (KLR)

Parties

Procedural Posture

Criminal Revision / Ruling on Application for Revision of Subordinate Court Order

Legal Issues

1. 1 Whether the trial court followed due process under section 131 of the Criminal Procedure Code in ordering the sale of security deposited by the surety.
2. 2 Whether the surety was given an opportunity to be heard or to show cause before the forfeiture and sale of the security.
3. 3 Whether the trial court exercised its discretion judiciously and in accordance with the law when disposing of the security.

Ratio Decidendi

The High Court found that the trial magistrate failed to follow the due process required by section 131 of the Criminal Procedure Code before ordering the sale of the security deposited by the surety. Specifically, the magistrate did not ensure that the surety was served with summons or notice to show cause, nor was the surety given an opportunity to be heard or to produce the accused. The court emphasized that the exercise of judicial discretion in such matters must be guided by fairness, sound judgment, and adherence to statutory and constitutional requirements. The impugned order was made without proper inquiry or observance of procedural safeguards, rendering it irregular and unjust....

Court Disposition

Application for revision allowed; order for sale of security set aside.

Orders

• The order for disposal of the security (title deed) by public auction is set aside.
• The matter is remitted for compliance with due process under section 131 of the Criminal Procedure Code if further action is to be taken.