[1997] KECA 273 (KLR)
The Court of Appeal held that the High Court erred in summarily rejecting the appellant's appeal under section 352(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code because the grounds of appeal raised the issue of identification, which is a question of law and must be heard. Furthermore, the High Court had no authority to combine...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [1997] KECA 273 (KLR)
- Parties
- Appellant: Peter Ndungu Njoroge; Respondent: Republic
- Court
- Court of Appeal
- Court Station
- Court of Appeal at Nairobi
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- ? 91 of 1995
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Appeal / Appeal From Order of High Court on Revision
- Outcome
- Appeal allowed. High Court orders set aside. Appellant's appeal to be admitted to hearing in the High Court.
- Legal Topics
- Summary Rejection of Appeal, Powers of High Court on Revision, Appeal Rights, Identification Evidence
- 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
Peter Ndungu Njoroge
Appellant
Republic
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal From Order of High Court on Revision
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the High Court erred in summarily rejecting the appellant's criminal appeal under section 352(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code.
- 2 Whether the High Court could combine summary rejection of appeal with revisionary powers under section 362 of the Criminal Procedure Code.
- 3 Whether the grounds of appeal raising identification issues precluded summary rejection.
Ratio Decidendi
The Court of Appeal held that the High Court erred in summarily rejecting the appellant's appeal under section 352(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code because the grounds of appeal raised the issue of identification, which is a question of law and must be heard. Furthermore, the High Court had no authority to combine the summary rejection of an appeal with the exercise of revisionary powers under section 362. The reduction of sentence by the High Court during summary rejection was improper and indicated that the appeal should have been admitted to hearing. The Court of Appeal therefore set aside the High Court's orders and directed that the appellant's appeal be admitted to hearing and...
Court Disposition
Appeal allowed. High Court orders set aside. Appellant's appeal to be admitted to hearing in the High Court.
Orders
- The appeal is allowed.
- All orders made by the High Court Judge are set aside.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
23 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL
AT NAIROBI
CORAM: OMOLO & SHAH, JJ.A. & BOSIRE, AG. J.A.
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 91 OF 1995
BETWEEN
PETER NDUNGU NJOROGE ................................. APPELLANT
AND
REPUBLIC ............................................. RESPONDENT
(Appeal from an order of the High Court of Kenya at Nairobi (Patel J) dated 26th April, 1995 in H.C.CR.A. NO. 1429 OF 1994) *****************
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
Mr. Bwonwonga, the Assistant Deputy Public Prosecutor, who appears for the state concedes this appeal. In our view he is right to do so. The appellant filed first appeal in the High Court. When the appeal went before Patel, J. he purported to make an order on revision. In the "Order on Revision" the Judge purported to summarily reject the appeal. An appeal can only be summarily rejected under section 352(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code. That provision only applies when a judge of the High Court is satisfied, upon perusal of the record of the subordinate court, that neither the conviction nor the sentence imposed raises reasonable issue which can be argued on appeal. The grounds of appeal by the appellant raised the question of identification; that is always a question of law and takes away the power of the High Court to summarily reject an appeal.
Secondly the learned Judge of the High Court purported to reduce the sentence imposed when he (judge) purported to summarily reject the appeal. The very fact that the Judge thought the sentence ought to be reduced constituted a reason for admitting the appeal to hearing. We would respectfully point out to the learned Judge that there is no provision in the Criminal Procedure Code authorising the High Court to combine the provisions of section 352(2) with the revision provisions under section 362 of the Code. We are equally surprised that the Judge thought the sentence of five years imprisonment was harsh and excessive when the facts alleged and accepted by the magistrate and the Judge himself showed the appellant and his cronies were armed with guns when the alleged robbery occurred. We allow this appeal and set aside all the orders made by the Judge. We order that the appellant's appeal be admitted to hearing and thereafter be heard and determined according to law by the High Court.
Those shall be our orders.
Dated and delivered at Nairobi this 15th day of January, 1997.
R. S. C. OMOLO ---------------
JUDGE OF APPEAL
A. B. SHAH ---------------
JUDGE OF APPEAL
S. E. O. BOSIRE -------------------
AG. JUDGE OF APPEAL
I certify that this is a true copy of the original.
DEPUTY REGISTRAR