Murigi v Republic (Miscellaneous Criminal Application E055 of 2026) [2026] KEHC 6745 (KLR) (18 May 2026) (Ruling)

Murigi v Republic (Miscellaneous Criminal Application E055 of 2026) [2026] KEHC 6745 (KLR) (18 May 2026) (Ruling) Neutral citation: [2026] KEHC 6745 (KLR) Republic of Kenya In the High Court at Kibera Miscellaneous Criminal Application E055 of 2026 DR Kavedza, J May 18, 2026 Between Mercy Wairimu Murigi Applicant and Republic Respondent Ruling 1.The Applicant is an accused person before the trial court in Criminal Case No. E1460 of 2024; Republic v. Mercy Wairimu Murigi where she faces a charge of assault causing grievous harm contrary to section 234 of the Penal Code. By a Notice of Motion dated 7th April 2026, she seeks revision of the trial court’s ruling delivered on 2nd April 2026 placing the applicant on her defence and substitute it with a no case to answer, and accordingly acquit her. 2.The Application is supported by the Applicant’s Affidavit sworn on the same date. She avers that the prosecution called four witnesses in an attempt to establish a case to answer, following which the trial court placed her on her defence. The Applicant contends that the trial court failed to consider material issues arising during the trial, including unreliable and contradictory prosecution evidence, inconsistent medical evidence, hostile witnesses, lack of evidence linking her to the offence, alleged withholding of evidence, witness intimidation, malicious extortion, mental anguish and irreparable prejudice. She therefore urges the Court to allow the application. 3.The Applicant further depones that the legal threshold for placing an accused person on her defence was not met. She asserts that this Court is empowered under section 364(1)(b) of the Criminal Procedure Code to revise or set aside orders of a subordinate court where illegality, impropriety, or a miscarriage of justice is apparent. She accordingly prays that the application be allowed. 4.The application was canvassed by way of oral submissions which have been duly considered and there is no need to rehash them. The High Court’s power of revision is set out in Article 165 (6) and (7) which provides: -(6)The High Court has supervisory jurisdiction over the subordinate courts and over any person, body or authority exercising a judicial or quasi-judicial function, but over a superior court.(7)For the purposes of clause (6), the High Court may call for the record of any proceedings before any subordinate court or person, body or authority referred to in clause (6), and may make any order or give any direction it considers appropriate to ensure the fair administration of justice. 5.Section 362 of the Criminal Procedure Code provides: -The High Court may call and examine the record of any criminal proceedings before any subordinate court for the purpose of satisfying itself as to the correctness, legality or propriety of any finding, sentence or order recorded or passed and as to the regularity of any proceedings of any such subordinate court. 6.The revisionary jurisdiction of the High Court was discussed by Odunga J in a persuasive decision of Joseph Nduvi Mbuvi vs Republic [2019] eKLR: -“In my considered view, the object of the revisional jurisdiction of the High Court is to enable the high Court in appropriate cases, whether during the pendency of the proceedings in the subordinate court or at the conclusion of the proceedings to correct manifest irregularities or illegalities and give appropriate directions on the manner in which the trial, if still ongoing, should be proceeded with. In other words, the High Court’s revisionary jurisdiction includes ensuring that where the proceeding in the lower court has been legally derailed, necessary directions are given to bring the same back on track so that the trial proceeds towards its intended destination without hitches. Not only is the jurisdiction exercisable where the subordinate court has made a finding, sentence or order but goes on to state that it is also exercisable to determine the regularity of any proceedings of any such subordinate court as well.” 7.The foregoing provisions vest this Court with revisionary jurisdiction over orders of subordinate courts. This Court is therefore properly seized of the authority to entertain the present application. In proceedings of this nature, the burden rests upon the Applicant to demonstrate that the trial court acted illegally, improperly, irregularly, or upon a misapprehension of the law or facts in arriving at the impugned decision. 8.In the present matter, at the close of the Prosecution’s case the learned trial magistrate found that the Prosecution had established a case to answer and accordingly placed the Applicant on her defence. That finding did not determine guilt but merely signified that the evidence on record disclosed matters requiring an answer from the defence. By so doing, the trial court afforded the Applicant an opportunity to be heard, which forms an integral component of the right to a fair trial guaranteed under Article 50 of the Constitution. 9.A criminal trial is a continuous judicial process which must run its course to its lawful conclusion. An accused person cannot properly disengage from the process at an intermediate stage merely because the court has found a case to answer. The obligation placed upon the Applicant is to present her defence so that the trial court may evaluate the totality of the evidence before rendering its final determination. In placing the Applicant on her defence, the learned magistrate acted within the confines of the law and followed the prescribed procedure, thereby safeguarding rather than undermining the fairness of the trial. 10.At the stage of determining whether a case to answer has been made out, the trial court is not required to render a detailed evaluation of the evidence or give elaborate reasons, as such analysis may risk pre-judging issues reserved for the final judgment after the defence is heard. The Applicant therefore has no legal entitlement to insist upon extensive reasoning at that interlocutory stage. His proper recourse lies in tendering his defence and, if necessary, challenging the final decision through the appellate process. 11.In the premises, the Applicant has not demonstrated any illegality, impropriety, irregularity, or miscarriage of justice that would justify this Court’s intervention in exercise of its revisionary jurisdiction. The application dated 7th April 2026 is lacking in merit and is hereby dismissed.Orders accordingly. RULING DATED AND DELIVERED VIRTUALLY THIS 18TH DAY OF MAY 2026D. KAVEDZAJUDGEIn the presence of:Mr. Chege Mchoche for the ApplicantMr. Mutuma for the RespondentKarimi Court Assistant.