[2024] KEHC 238 (KLR)
The High Court found that although the applicant and complainant had a prior settlement and withdrawal of charges in City Court Criminal Case E4995 of 2020, the subsequent charges in Milimani Chief Magistrates Criminal Case E1089 of 2021 relate to different facts, particulars, and periods. The offences in the new...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2024] KEHC 238 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Peter Kaguongo Mwaniki; Respondent: Republic
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Miscellaneous Criminal Application E293 of 2023
- Procedural Posture
- Miscellaneous Criminal Application / Ruling on Notice of Motion for Stay of Proceedings and Acquittal
- Outcome
- application dismissed
- Judges
- K Kimondo
- Legal Topics
- Stay of Proceedings, Double Jeopardy, Withdrawal of Charges, Supervisory Jurisdiction, Criminal Review
- 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
Peter Kaguongo Mwaniki
Applicant
Republic
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Criminal Application / Ruling on Notice of Motion for Stay of Proceedings and Acquittal
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the withdrawal and settlement of previous criminal charges bars subsequent prosecution on related facts.
- 2 Whether the High Court should stay proceedings in the subordinate court or acquit the applicant based on the prior settlement.
Ratio Decidendi
The High Court found that although the applicant and complainant had a prior settlement and withdrawal of charges in City Court Criminal Case E4995 of 2020, the subsequent charges in Milimani Chief Magistrates Criminal Case E1089 of 2021 relate to different facts, particulars, and periods. The offences in the new case are not the same as those previously settled, and thus the withdrawal of the earlier case does not bar the current prosecution. The court declined to stay the proceedings or grant an acquittal, holding that the applicant had not demonstrated that the charges were based on the same facts or that the prosecution was an abuse of process. The notice of motion was dismissed in...
Court Disposition
application dismissed
Orders
- The notice of motion dated 26th July 2023 is dismissed.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
30 paragraphs
Mwaniki v Republic (Miscellaneous Criminal Application E293 of 2023) [2024] KEHC 238 (KLR) (Crim) (23 January 2024) (Ruling)
Neutral citation: [2024] KEHC 238 (KLR)
Republic of Kenya
In the High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
Criminal
Miscellaneous Criminal Application E293 of 2023
K Kimondo, J
January 23, 2024
Between
Peter Kaguongo Mwaniki
Applicant
and
Republic
Respondent
Ruling
1. The applicant prays for stay of proceedings in Milimani Chief Magistrates Criminal Case Number E1089 of 2021 in which he is charged with five counts of theft, forgery and uttering false documents. He also craves that the High Court be pleased to acquit him altogether of those charges.
2. The notice of motion is dated 26th July 2023 and predicated upon his deposition of even date.
3. The motion is strenuously opposed by the prosecution through Grounds of Opposition dated 8th October 2023.
4. On 8th December 2023, I heard further arguments from both learned counsel for the disputants.
5. The gist of the applicant’s case is that there were previous criminal proceedings at the City Court in Criminal Case E4995 of 2020 which was settled and withdrawn on 25th March 2021. The typed proceedings in that case are annexed and marked PKM-6. He argues that the subsequent proceedings “though not the same [are] cognate….and is based on similar facts and circumstances”.
6. The rebuttal by the Director of Public Prosecutions is that although the complainant and the accused are the same in both cases, the particulars and the sums in the two charge sheets are different. In a synopsis, it is contended that the withdrawal of the older case is not a bar to the subsequent prosecution.
7. I take the following view of the matter. Article 165 (6) of the Constitution confers the High Court with supervisory jurisdiction over all subordinate courts. Furthermore, and, by dint of sections 362 to 364 of the Criminal Procedure Code, the High Court is imbued with wide powers to review the impugned proceedings in the lower court.
8. In view of the nature of orders that I propose to make, it would be prejudicial to delve into the merits of the criminal charges now facing the applicant.
9. The background of the two cases is material: The applicant was for many years a care taker of an apartment block in South C Nairobi owned by the complainant, George Mbugua. Vide a complaint booked under OB No. 77/16/11/2020 the applicant was originally charged in City Court Criminal Case E4995 of 2020. It is not disputed, and it is apparent from the charge sheet (annexture PKM-3) that he was charged with 35 counts of theft of Kshs 832,000, making false documents or uttering false documents. Those offences took place between the dates of 1st June 2019 and 30th October 2020.
10. It is not also contested that those are the charges that were settled and withdrawn on 24th March 2021. To be fair to the applicant, there was a written settlement agreement under which the applicant transferred a motor vehicle KCM 218D to the complainant and also paid him Kshs 100,000.
11. But my perusal of the subsequent charge in Milimani Chief Magistrates Criminal Case E1089 of 2021, shows that the applicant is accused of theft of Kshs 2,048,400 and 4 counts of forgery and uttering false documents. Fundamentally, the offences are alleged to have taken place on diverse dates between 1st December 2017 and 28th February 2019.
12. Like I have stated, the applicant was a caretaker at the the complainant’s premises for many years. Other than that common connection of master and servant, I am not satisfied that the latter criminal charge, on the face of it, relates to the same facts or particulars as those charged in the previous case. I say that very carefully and without making a final finding. The less I say about it the better.
13. For the same reasons, the prayer for acquittal by the High Court is unmerited.
14. The upshot is that the entire notice of motion by the applicant dated 26th July 2023 is hereby dismissed.It is so ordered.
DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED AT NAIROBI THIS 23RD DAY OF JANUARY 2024. KANYI KIMONDOJUDGERuling read virtually on Microsoft Teams in the presence of:Mr. Mongare for the respondent instructed by the office of the Director of Public prosecutions.