[2021] KEHC 1138 (KLR)
The High Court found that the application to dismiss criminal charges for delay was premature and incompetent because it had not first been made before the trial court. The court emphasized that its role is to revise orders or hear appeals from the lower courts, not to entertain such applications in the first...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2021] KEHC 1138 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Muthuri M’mbijiwe Muguongo; Respondent: Republic
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Miscellaneous Criminal Application E003 of 2021
- Procedural Posture
- Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application to Dismiss Criminal Charges
- Outcome
- application struck out as premature and incompetent
- Legal Topics
- Criminal Trial Delay, Remand Periods, Jurisdiction of High Court
- 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
Muthuri M’mbijiwe Muguongo
Applicant
Republic
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application to Dismiss Criminal Charges
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the High Court can dismiss criminal charges for delay before the trial court has ruled on the issue.
- 2 Whether the time spent in remand justifies dismissal of charges where the sentence for the offence is similar to the remand period.
Ratio Decidendi
The High Court found that the application to dismiss criminal charges for delay was premature and incompetent because it had not first been made before the trial court. The court emphasized that its role is to revise orders or hear appeals from the lower courts, not to entertain such applications in the first instance. Since the trial court had not ruled on the issue, the High Court declined to consider the merits and struck out the application, directing that the applicant should first seek relief before the trial court.
Court Disposition
application struck out as premature and incompetent
Orders
- The application is struck out.
- The applicant may make the application before the trial court.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
32 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA
AT NAIROBI
MISC CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO E003 OF 2021
MUTHURI M’MBIJIWE MUGUONGO...................................ACCUSED/APPLICANT
VERSUS
REPUBLIC........................................................................PROSECUTOR/RESPONDENT
(An application arising from the Chief Magistrate’s Courtat Nairobi
in Criminal Case No. 206 of 2016,Republic v Muthuri M’mbijiwe Muguongo)
RULING
The accused applied under certificate of urgency for the following order.
1. An order to dismiss charges of obtaining by false pretences contrary to section 313 of the Penal Code (Cap 63) Laws of Kenya which are pending against him in the lower court.
The application is supported by 10 grounds that are set out on the face of the notice of motion, with the following being the major grounds.
The applicant has been in remand for a period of 17 months and the case has never proceeded because the police file has never been availed in court. The trial magistrate has always insisted that the hearing proceeds but has been granting adjournments.
He has further stated that:“Considering the time I have spent in prison and the sentence the offence carries, they are almost the same.”
He has therefore made this application so that the trial should be stopped since the time he has spent in prison is almost the same as the sentence the offences charged with carry.
The applicant has reproduced the same grounds in support of his notice of motion in his affidavit, which I find unnecessary to replicate herein.
During the oral hearing of this application the applicant submitted that he has been in remand for three years and the case has never taken off. And the offences carry three years imprisonment and it is for that reason that he has applied to this court to dismiss the charges against him.
The prosecuting counsel (Mr. Kibathi) opposed the application and submitted that this application ought to have been made in the trial court. He therefore applied that the case be sent back to the trial court for that purpose.
In response the applicant agreed that the case should be sent back to the trial court.
I have considered the application. I find that this application ought first to have been made to the trial court; which would then rule on the issue.
It should be remembered this court is allowed to revise orders made by the trial courts and to hear appeals from those courts. The application made is not one of those matters that are fit for consideration by this court.
In the premises, I find that the application is premature and incompetent and is hereby struck out.
RULING SIGNED, DATED AND DELIVERED THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCE IN OPEN COURT AT NAIROBI THIS 7TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2021.
J. M. BWONWONG’A
JUDGE
In the presence of-
Mr. Kinyua, court assistant
The applicant
Mr. Naulikha for the Respondent
Ruling signed, dated and delivered in open court conference at
Nairobi this 7th day of December 2021.