[2021] KEHC 4135 (KLR)
The court determined that, in the interest of fairness and to avoid prejudice, it is necessary for both parties to clarify which documentation and grounds of appeal are being relied upon. This ensures that the respondent is aware of the case to answer and that the appellant's appeal is properly presented. The court...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2021] KEHC 4135 (KLR)
- Parties
- Appellant: Meshack Kuria Munyua; Respondent: Republic
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Naivasha
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Criminal Appeal 10 of 2019
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Appeal / Directions Prior to Hearing and Clarification of Appeal Documentation
- Outcome
- Directions issued for parties to clarify documentation relied upon in the appeal and for new dates to be set for submissions.
- Legal Topics
- Criminal Appeal Procedure, Clarification of Grounds, Submissions Management
- 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
Meshack Kuria Munyua
Appellant
Republic
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Directions Prior to Hearing and Clarification of Appeal Documentation
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the appellant's submissions correspond to the correct grounds of appeal.
- 2 Whether the respondent's submissions address the issues raised in the amended grounds of appeal.
- 3 Whether there is clarity on the documentation relied upon by both parties in the appeal.
Ratio Decidendi
The court determined that, in the interest of fairness and to avoid prejudice, it is necessary for both parties to clarify which documentation and grounds of appeal are being relied upon. This ensures that the respondent is aware of the case to answer and that the appellant's appeal is properly presented. The court directed the parties to return for clarification and to set new dates for highlighting and making submissions. The directions were also influenced by the need to adapt to COVID-19 restrictions, with proceedings conducted via teleconference and appropriate records and consents retained.
Court Disposition
Directions issued for parties to clarify documentation relied upon in the appeal and for new dates to be set for submissions.
Orders
- Parties to return to court to clarify which documentation the appellant is relying on in his appeal and which the DPP is to respond to.
- New dates to be set for clarification and highlighting of parties' submissions.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
27 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT NAIVASHA
CORAM: R. MWONGO, J.
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 10 OF 2019
MESHACK KURIA MUNYUA..............................................APPELLANT
VERSUS
REPUBLIC..............................................................................RESPONDENT
(Being an Appeal from the Original Conviction and Sentence in Criminal Case No.109 of 2016 (S.O.) in the Senior Principal Magistrate’s Court, at Engineer, D. N. Sure, SRM
DIRECTIONS
1. Having carefully perused the material in the file herein, the court notes that the Appellant’s written submissions concern a Petition of Appeal filed on 2nd August, 2019 and not the Amended Grounds of Appeal filed on 14th October, 2020, and submissions thereon.
2. The DPP’s submissions cover the following aspects of the appeal: the issues of Proof of Penetration; Failure to affirm the PW1 and PW2 and the issue of Sentence. Those are the issues raised in the Amended Grounds of Appeal filed on 14th October, 2020.
3. In order not to cause any prejudice to the Appellant, there is need for clarity and certainty on exactly what is the appeal and what the State is expected to defend against.
4. Accordingly, parties are directed to return to court to clarify which documentation the Appellant is relying on in his appeal; and which the DPP is to respond to.
5. Consequently, new dates for making the clarification and highlighting the parties submissions to be taken in the term.
Administrative directions
6. Due to the current inhibitions on movement nationally, and in keeping with social distancing requirements decreed by the state due to the Corona-virus pandemic,this Judgment has been rendered through Teams tele-conference with the consent of the parties noted hereunder, who were also able to participate in the conference. Accordingly, a signed copy of this judgment shall be scanned and availed to the parties and relevant authorities as evidence of the delivery thereof, with the High Court seal duly affixed thereon by the Executive Officer, Naivasha.
7. A printout of the parties’ written consent to the delivery of this judgment shall be retained as part of the record of the Court.
8. Orders accordingly.
Dated and Delivered in Naivasha by teleconference this 3rd Day of August, 2021.
________________
R. MWONGO
JUDGE
Attendance list at video/teleconference:
1. Ms Maingi for the Respondent
2. No Representation for the Appellant
3. Meshack Kiria Munyua – Present at Naivasha Maximum Prison
4. Court Assistant - Quinter Ogutu