[2001] KEHC 221 (KLR)

[2001] KEHC 221 (KLR)

The court held that there is a substantial legal issue as to whether a person can be charged with robbery of property previously stolen by another thief, given that the first thief does not acquire lawful ownership of the stolen goods. On the face of the pleadings and the law, the applicant has demonstrated an...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2001] KEHC 221 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: Paul Muiruri Kigwathi; Respondent: Republic
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Criminal Application 427 of 2001
Procedural Posture
Criminal Application / Ex Parte Chamber Application for Leave to Apply for Prohibition and Related Orders
Outcome
Leave to apply for prohibition granted; stay of proceedings and bail denied at this stage; inter-partes hearing ordered.
Legal Topics
Judicial Review, Prohibition Orders, Abuse of Process, Robbery With Violence, Bail Pending Trial
Source Language
en
Criminal Law Civil Procedure Judicial Review Prohibition Orders Abuse of Process Robbery With Violence Bail Pending Trial

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 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Paul Muiruri Kigwathi

Applicant

Republic

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Application / Ex Parte Chamber Application for Leave to Apply for Prohibition and Related Orders

  1. 1 Whether a person can be charged with robbery of property previously stolen by another thief from the original owner.
  2. 2 Whether the intended criminal proceedings against the applicant constitute an abuse of the process of the court.
  3. 3 Whether leave to apply for orders of prohibition should be granted.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that there is a substantial legal issue as to whether a person can be charged with robbery of property previously stolen by another thief, given that the first thief does not acquire lawful ownership of the stolen goods. On the face of the pleadings and the law, the applicant has demonstrated an arguable case for the grant of leave to apply for an order of prohibition. The court found that the applicant's intended trial, where the alleged victim is also charged with stealing the same items, raises a serious question of abuse of process. Accordingly, the court granted leave to the applicant to file a substantive motion for prohibition but declined to grant a stay of...

Court Disposition

Leave to apply for prohibition granted; stay of proceedings and bail denied at this stage; inter-partes hearing ordered.

Orders

  • Leave is granted to the applicant to file a Notice of Motion for prohibition as prayed.
  • The application for stay of proceedings and bail is to be heard inter-partes after service on the Republic.