[2004] KEHC 522 (KLR)
The court found that the applicant failed to provide a satisfactory explanation for the delay in filing the appeal and did not annex certified copies of proceedings or a draft petition of appeal. The uncertified proceedings provided were incomplete, lacking the charge sheet, and there was no evidence that certified...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2004] KEHC 522 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Republic; Defendant: Benjamin Kyalo Mutune
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- ? 28 of 2004
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application for Leave to Appeal Out of Time
- Outcome
- application dismissed
- Judges
- RPV Wendoh
- Legal Topics
- Leave to Appeal, Delay in Filing Appeal, Unqualified Prosecutor, Requirements for Appeal
- 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
Republic
Applicant
Benjamin Kyalo Mutune
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Criminal Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application for Leave to Appeal Out of Time
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the applicant has provided sufficient explanation for the delay in filing the appeal.
- 2 Whether the failure to annex certified proceedings and a draft petition of appeal is fatal to the application.
- 3 Whether the issue of an unqualified prosecutor raises an arguable point of law warranting leave to appeal.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the applicant failed to provide a satisfactory explanation for the delay in filing the appeal and did not annex certified copies of proceedings or a draft petition of appeal. The uncertified proceedings provided were incomplete, lacking the charge sheet, and there was no evidence that certified copies had been properly requested. The absence of a draft petition of appeal deprived the respondent of the opportunity to respond meaningfully and the court of the ability to assess whether there was an arguable appeal. Even if the issue of an unqualified prosecutor was apparent, the applicant did not demonstrate that there was an arguable appeal or that a retrial would...
Court Disposition
application dismissed
Orders
- The application for leave to appeal out of time is refused and dismissed.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
17 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT MACHAKOS APPELLATE SIDE CRIMINAL MISC. APP. 28 OF 2004
(From Original Conviction and sentence in Criminal case No. 1783 of 2003 of Chief Magistrate’s Court at Machakos)
REPUBLIC :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: APPLICANT
VERSUS
BENJAMIN KYALO MUTUNE :::::::::::::::::: DEFENDANT
R U L I N G
The application dated 21. 4.2004 is brought pursuant to Section 349 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The applicant is the State. The application is supported by the affidavit of Moses O”mirera the State Counsel who depones that the Respondent had been charged with the offence of assault contrary to Section 251 of the Penal Code in SPM Cr.C. 1783/03 and was acquitted on 12. 1.2002 under Section 202 Criminal Procedure Code. He depones that certified copies of proceedings were applied for but none were supplied. He purported to have annexed the letter as MMI and MM2 but none was annexed to the application. That no proceedings have been supplied to them to date and they have merely annexed uncertified copies of proceedings. It is his contention that a question of law arises which is disclosed in submission that the prosecution was by an unqualified prosecutor.
The application was opposed and a replying affidavit filed by the respondent who depones that the nature of the issue of law is not disclosed, the delay in obtaining proceedings is not explained and no draft petition of appeal is annexed for the court to consider it and see if indeed there is an arguable appeal.
When the case was dismissed under S.202 Criminal Procedure Code on 12. 1.2004 the prosecutor applied for certified copies of proceedings but no reasons were given as to why they were required. Though counsel indicates that there were letters annexed to the affidavit requesting for proceedings none were annexed. There is no evidence that the applicant ever applied for certified copies of proceedings for purposes of appeal.
The applicant has annexed some uncertified copies of proceedings to the affidavit in support, and the court has no idea why they did not have them certified. They were very brief. In any event, they are incomplete, there is no charge sheet and the court cannot confirm that it is the correct record of the proceedings before lower court.
No draft petition of appeal was annexed to the application. A draft petition of appeal would have enabled the respondent know how to respond to this application. It is crucial to such an application that the draft memorandum of appeal be annexed.
The delay in filing the appeal is not satisfactorily explained and the material placed before the court is not sufficient to avail the order sought to the applicant. Even if the issue of law of unqualified prosecutor was apparent the applicant has to show that there was an arguable appeal with evidence that would result in a possible conviction if a retrial was ordered by this court. Accordingly the application is refused and dismissed.
Dated, read and delivered at Machakos this 7th day of October 2004.
Read and delivered in the
Presence of
R. V. WENDOH
JUDGE