[2017] KEHC 7702 (KLR)
The High Court held that the trial court erred in rejecting the prosecution's application to withdraw the charges under Section 87(a) of the Criminal Procedure Code. The applicants had complied with the statutory requirements under the Occupational Safety and Health Act 2007, which formed the basis of the charges....
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2017] KEHC 7702 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Parinaz Firozi; Applicant: E-Cart Services Ltd; Respondent: Republic
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Commercial Courts)
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Miscellaneous Application 146 of 2016
- Procedural Posture
- Miscellaneous Application / Application for Revision of Trial Court Order
- Outcome
- application for revision allowed; trial court order set aside; charges withdrawn
- Judges
- LK Kimaru
- Legal Topics
- Withdrawal of Charges, Revision Jurisdiction, Prosecutorial Discretion
- 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
Parinaz Firozi
Applicant
E-Cart Services Ltd
Applicant
Republic
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Application for Revision of Trial Court Order
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the trial court erred in rejecting the prosecution's application to withdraw charges under Section 87(a) of the Criminal Procedure Code.
- 2 Whether the applicants' compliance with the Occupational Safety and Health Act 2007 justified withdrawal of charges.
Ratio Decidendi
The High Court held that the trial court erred in rejecting the prosecution's application to withdraw the charges under Section 87(a) of the Criminal Procedure Code. The applicants had complied with the statutory requirements under the Occupational Safety and Health Act 2007, which formed the basis of the charges. The prosecution, having confirmed compliance, properly sought to withdraw the charges. There was no legal basis for the trial court to insist on proceeding with the charges once compliance was achieved. The High Court set aside the trial court's order and allowed the withdrawal of charges, emphasizing the court's role in ensuring that criminal proceedings are not pursued where...
Court Disposition
application for revision allowed; trial court order set aside; charges withdrawn
Orders
- The order issued by the trial court on 22nd March 2016 rejecting the prosecution’s application to withdraw the charges is set aside.
- The prosecution’s application to withdraw the charges against the applicants is allowed.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
14 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT NAIROBI
MISCELLANEIOUS APPLICATION N0. 146 OF 2016
PARINAZ FIROZI…….…………………………….....1ST APPLICANT
E-CART SERVICES LTD……………………………..2NDAPPLICANT
VERSUS
REPUBLIC………………………………………………RESPONDENT
R U L I N G
The Applicants, Parinaz Firozi and E-Cart Services Ltd were charged with a raft of charges under the Occupational Safety and Health Act 2007. The charges were six in number. At the time the Applicants were arraigned before the trial magistrate’s court they requested that the taking of plea be deferred as they were in negotiations with the prosecution with a view to resolving the dispute that led to the charges being brought against them. Plea was later taken and the Applicants denied the charges. It is apparent from the record of the trial court that the negotiations were successful. The Applicants complied with what was required of them under the Occupational Safety and Health Act 2007. On 22nd March 2016, the prosecution sought to have the charges brought against the Applicants withdrawn under Section 87(a) of the Criminal Procedure Code. The Applicants did not have objection to the withdrawal of the charges. The court however declined the prosecution’s request to withdraw the charges. The court was of the view that no basis had been laid in law by the prosecution to withdraw the charges that were brought against the Applicants. The Applicants were aggrieved by this decision and moved to this court to have the same revised.
At the hearing of the application, Ms. Atina for the State conceded to the application. She submitted that whereas the trial court was entitled to interrogate the reasons put forward by the prosecution in seeking to withdraw the charges, in the present case, the trial court had no reason to reject the prosecution’s application to withdraw the charges under Section 87(a) of theCriminal Procedure Code. Mr. Adogo for the Applicants welcomed the concession by the prosecution. UnderSection 87(a)of the Criminal Procedure Code, the prosecution may apply to withdraw charges against an accused person provided the court consents to it. In the present application, it was apparent to this court that the basis upon which the Applicants were charged was their non-compliance with the statutory requirements under the Occupational Safety and Health Act 2007. From the submission made by the prosecution, it was evident that the Applicants had complied with the said statutory edicts at the time the prosecution sought to withdraw the charges. There was no basis therefore upon which the prosecution could have proceeded with the charges. The trial court, in the considered view of this court, erred when it rejected the prosecution’s application to withdraw the charges under Section 87(a) of the Criminal Procedure Code.
For the above reasons, this court finds the application for revision lodged by the Applicants merited. The order issued by the trial court on 22nd March 2016 rejecting the prosecution’s application to withdraw the charges under Section 87(a) of the Criminal Procedure Code is hereby set aside and substituted by an order of this court allowing the prosecution’s application to withdraw the charges against the Applicants. In the premises therefore, the charges against the Applicants are hereby withdrawn under Section 87(a) of the Criminal Procedure Code. It is so ordered.
DATED AT NAIROBI THIS 2ND FEBRUARY 2017
L. KIMARU
JUDGE