[2023] KEHC 18190 (KLR)

[2023] KEHC 18190 (KLR)

The court found that the application for revision was not urgent and declined to certify it as such. However, the court acknowledged its jurisdiction to call for the lower court file to examine the legality and propriety of the impugned order. The court directed the applicant to serve the respondent and set...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2023] KEHC 18190 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: Seth Steve Okute; Respondent: Republic
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Miscellaneous Criminal Case E190 of 2023
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Criminal Application / Ruling on Preliminary Application for Revision and Directions
Outcome
Application for urgency declined; directions issued for service, response, and mention.
Judges
DR Kavedza
Legal Topics
Judicial Review, Criminal Revision, Procedure for Revision, Urgency Certification
Source Language
en
Criminal Law Judicial Review Criminal Revision Procedure for Revision Urgency Certification

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Downloadable case file Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Seth Steve Okute

Applicant

Republic

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Miscellaneous Criminal Application / Ruling on Preliminary Application for Revision and Directions

  1. 1 Whether the application for revision of the lower court's order is urgent and should be certified as such.
  2. 2 Whether the court should call for the lower court file to examine the correctness, propriety, and legality of the order issued under sections 362 and 364 of the Criminal Procedure Code.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the application for revision was not urgent and declined to certify it as such. However, the court acknowledged its jurisdiction to call for the lower court file to examine the legality and propriety of the impugned order. The court directed the applicant to serve the respondent and set timelines for the respondent to file a response. The lower court file was ordered to be availed by a specified date, and the matter was set for mention for further directions. The decision was based on the procedural requirements for revision applications and the need to ensure both parties are heard before substantive orders are made.

Court Disposition

Application for urgency declined; directions issued for service, response, and mention.

Orders

  • This matter is not certified urgent.
  • The applicant to serve the respondent with the application and the order of this court within three days from the date hereof.