[2016] KEHC 192 (KLR)

[2016] KEHC 192 (KLR)

The High Court declined to exercise its review jurisdiction because the issues raised by the applicants pertained to the conduct of the ongoing trial and interlocutory rulings by the trial magistrate. Such matters are not appropriate for review at this stage and should first be addressed before the trial court. The...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2016] KEHC 192 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: Peter Mucheni Linus; Applicant: David Njenga Ngugi; Respondent: Republic
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Nakuru
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Revision Case 69 of 2016
Procedural Posture
Criminal Revision / Ruling on Application for Review
Outcome
application for review declined
Judges
JV Juma
Legal Topics
Criminal Trial Procedure, Review Jurisdiction, Trial Court Powers
Source Language
en
Criminal Law Criminal Trial Procedure Review Jurisdiction Trial Court Powers

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 1 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Peter Mucheni Linus

Applicant

David Njenga Ngugi

Applicant

Republic

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Revision / Ruling on Application for Review

  1. 1 Whether the High Court should review interlocutory rulings made by the trial magistrate during an ongoing criminal trial.
  2. 2 Whether the applicants should first raise their grievances before the trial court.

Ratio Decidendi

The High Court declined to exercise its review jurisdiction because the issues raised by the applicants pertained to the conduct of the ongoing trial and interlocutory rulings by the trial magistrate. Such matters are not appropriate for review at this stage and should first be addressed before the trial court. The court emphasized that its review powers are not meant to interfere with ongoing proceedings unless exceptional circumstances are demonstrated, which was not the case here.

Court Disposition

application for review declined

Orders

  • No orders of review are granted.