[2024] KEHC 5477 (KLR)
The court found that the applicant had previously filed and prosecuted an appeal against the same conviction and sentence, which was dismissed for lack of merit. The subsequent filing of a second appeal on the same matter, without disclosure of the earlier proceedings, constituted an abuse of the court process. The...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2024] KEHC 5477 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Joseph Kamau Njoroge; Respondent: Republic
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Thika
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Criminal Revision E53 of 2023
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Revision / Ruling on Appeal's Propriety and Abuse of Process
- Outcome
- Appeal struck out as misconceived, vexatious, and an abuse of process.
- Judges
- FN Muchemi
- Legal Topics
- Abuse of Court Process, Double Appeal, Defilement Offence, Criminal Appeal Procedure
- 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
Joseph Kamau Njoroge
Applicant
Republic
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Criminal Revision / Ruling on Appeal's Propriety and Abuse of Process
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the applicant was entitled to file a second appeal against the same judgment after the first appeal was dismissed.
- 2 Whether the filing of a second appeal constituted an abuse of the court process.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the applicant had previously filed and prosecuted an appeal against the same conviction and sentence, which was dismissed for lack of merit. The subsequent filing of a second appeal on the same matter, without disclosure of the earlier proceedings, constituted an abuse of the court process. The court emphasized that such conduct is unacceptable, wastes judicial resources, and must be discouraged. Consequently, the court struck out the appeal as misconceived, vexatious, and improperly before the court.
Court Disposition
Appeal struck out as misconceived, vexatious, and an abuse of process.
Orders
- The appeal is struck out.
- No further proceedings shall be entertained on the same matter in this court.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
23 paragraphs
Njoroge v Republic (Criminal Revision E53 of 2023) [2024] KEHC 5477 (KLR) (16 May 2024) (Ruling)
Neutral citation: [2024] KEHC 5477 (KLR)
Republic of Kenya
In the High Court at Thika
Criminal Revision E53 of 2023
FN Muchemi, J
May 16, 2024
(FORMERLY KIAMBU HCA NO 73 OF 2021)
Between
Joseph Kamau Njoroge
Applicant
and
Republic
Respondent
Ruling
1. The appellant’s appeal against the judgement of Gatundu Senior Resident Magistrate was heard through submissions. Both parties filed their submissions. The appellant was convicted of the offence of defilement contrary to Section 8(1) as read with Section 8(3) of the Sexual Offences Act and sentenced to serve twenty (20) years imprisonment. He rolled out several grounds of appeal.
2. As this court was preparing the judgment in this appeal and upon perusal of the original file, I came across a judgment in Kiambu HCA Gatundu Criminal Case No 7 of 2017. The appeal was heard and judgment prepared by E. N. Maina, J on 28th October 2020 and delivered on her behalf by Kasango J on 9th October 2020. The result was that the appeal was dismissed for lack of merit.
3. The appellant filed this appeal on 16th July 2021 a year after the first appeal was dismissed. The appeal was filed in Kiambu High Court as HCCA No 73 of 2021 against the same judgment. C.M Makari Senior Resident Magistrate in Gatundu Criminal Case (SO) No 7 of 2017. After Thika High Court was gazetted in August 2023, the file was transferred from Kiambu to this court for disposal.
4. It is imperative to note that it was within the knowledge of the appellant that he had filed another appeal against the same judgment in Gatundu Criminal Case No 7 of 2017 which had been heard and determined by a judge of the High Court. All along, the appellant never disclosed to the court the fact that he was on an unlawful mission of testing his luck in another court of concurrent jurisdiction.
5. In my view, the conduct of the appellant is unacceptable that has caused a waste of precious judicial time. I have noticed that this habit of filing appeals and applications after dismissal of the initial one is a common practice among prisoners and must be discouraged by engaging the prison authorities to intervene. Judicial officers and judges must be proactive in checking the relevant systems for such abuse of the court process.
6. I find this appeal misconceived, vexatious and improperly before the court and it is hereby struck out.
7. It is hereby so ordered.
RULING DELIVERED AT THIKA, DATED AND SIGNED THIS 16TH DAY OF MAY 2024. F. MUCHEMIJUDGE