[2013] KEHC 5203 (KLR)
The court found that the applicant's claims regarding defects in the charge sheet, occurrence book number, and handling of exhibits were matters that should have been raised during the original trial or on appeal. No new or substantive constitutional violation was demonstrated in the application. The court held that...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2013] KEHC 5203 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Mutonyah Kariuki; Respondent: Republic
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Kakamega
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Miscellaneous Criminal Application 74 of 2012
- Procedural Posture
- Miscellaneous Criminal Application / Ruling on Constitutional Application
- Outcome
- application dismissed
- Legal Topics
- Fair Trial Rights, Defective Charge Sheet, Constitutional Violation Claims, Criminal Appeal Process
- 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
Mutonyah Kariuki
Applicant
Republic
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Criminal Application / Ruling on Constitutional Application
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the applicant's constitutional right to a fair trial was violated during the criminal proceedings and appeal.
- 2 Whether the alleged defects in the charge sheet and handling of exhibits amounted to a violation of constitutional rights.
- 3 Whether the application properly invoked the relevant constitutional provisions for the relief sought.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the applicant's claims regarding defects in the charge sheet, occurrence book number, and handling of exhibits were matters that should have been raised during the original trial or on appeal. No new or substantive constitutional violation was demonstrated in the application. The court held that there was no evidence of a violation of the applicant's constitutional right to a fair trial, and the application did not properly invoke the relevant constitutional provisions for the relief sought. Consequently, the application was dismissed for lack of merit.
Court Disposition
application dismissed
Orders
- The application is hereby dismissed.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
18 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
High Court at Kakamega
Miscellaneous Criminal Application 74 of 2012 [if gte mso 9]><xml>
Normal 0
false false false
SW X-NONE X-NONE
</xml><![endif][if gte mso 9]><![endif][if gte mso 10]> <style> /* Style Definitions */ table.MsoNormalTable {mso-style-name:"Table Normal"; mso-style-parent:""; line-height:115%; font-size:11. 0pt;"Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-bidi-"Times New Roman";} </style> <![endif]
MUTONYAH KARIUKI ........................................... APPLICANT
V E R S U S
REPUBLIC ......................................................... RESPONDENT
R U L I N G
In his application dated 23rd May 2012, the applicant is contending that his constitutional rights were violated as he was not accorded a fair trial. His grounds for the application are that the occurrence book number was not indicated on the charge sheet, the charge sheet was defective, his tribe is Kikuyu yet he is a Kenyan. Further, he was charged with an alternative count of being in possession an AK 47 riffle and ammunition yet the exhibit memo done by one P.C. OLUOCH indicated that a riffle of unknown make and serial number was handed over to the firearm expert and lastly that the first report to the police was a case of attempted robbery. It is the applicant’s humble request that he was denied justice by both the trial magistrate and the two judge bench that heard his appeal.
Mr. Orinda, state counsel, opposed the application and submitted that the applicant has not exhausted the appeal chain and that the applicant would like to rewind the clock.
From the application, am not able to understand what orders the applicant is seeking. The application is not made under Article 50 of the Constitution requiring for a re-trial. It is made under Article 22, 23, 25 and 165 of the Constitution. The applicant contends that his Constitutional right to a fair trial was violated. The applicant did undergo a trial before the trial magistrate in Kakamega Senior Principal Magistrate’s Criminal Case number 548 of 2008. He was convicted and filed an appeal number 89 of 2009 that was dismissed by a two judge bench of the High Court.
The contentions by the applicant relating to Occurrence Book number, Serial number of riffles and defective charge sheet could have been raised during the trial. There is nothing new being raised by the applicant. I am not able to find that there was any violation of the applicant’s Constitutional rights and the application is hereby dismissed.
Delivered, dated and signed at Kakamega this 31st day of January, 2013
SAID J. CHITEMBWE
J U D G E