[2018] KEHC 358 (KLR)
The court found that the Resident Magistrate lacked jurisdiction to entertain and determine the matter as defined by section 2 of the Alcoholic Drinks Control Act, which restricts such jurisdiction to magistrates above the rank of Resident Magistrate. Consequently, any orders made by the Resident Magistrate,...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2018] KEHC 358 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Republic; Respondent: Brian Kiplangat & 5 Others
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Narok
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Criminal Revision 32 of 2018
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Revision / Order on Revision
- Outcome
- Order of Resident Magistrate set aside for want of jurisdiction.
- Legal Topics
- Jurisdiction of Magistrates, Withdrawal of Charges, Forfeiture of Cash Bail
- 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
Brian Kiplangat & 5 Others
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Criminal Revision / Order on Revision
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether a Resident Magistrate has jurisdiction to entertain and determine charges under the Alcoholic Drinks Control Act.
- 2 Whether the order for warrants of arrest to remain in force was valid.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the Resident Magistrate lacked jurisdiction to entertain and determine the matter as defined by section 2 of the Alcoholic Drinks Control Act, which restricts such jurisdiction to magistrates above the rank of Resident Magistrate. Consequently, any orders made by the Resident Magistrate, including the order that warrants of arrest remain in force, are null and void. The court therefore set aside the impugned order.
Court Disposition
Order of Resident Magistrate set aside for want of jurisdiction.
Orders
- The order that warrants of arrest remain in force is set aside.
- Any orders made by the Resident Magistrate in the matter are declared null and void.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
18 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT NAROK
CRIMINAL REVISION NO. 32 OF 2018
REPUBLIC........................................................ APPLICANT
-VERSUS-
BRIAN KIPLANGAT & 5 OTHERS............RESPONDENT
(Being Revision of the Order of the Resident Magistrate dated 13th March, 2018 in the Chief Magistrate Court at Narok, in Criminal Case No. 189 of 2018, Republic V. Brian Kiplangat & 5 Others).
ORDER ON REVISION
1. This matter has been reported by the Chief Magistrate (Hon. W.A. Juma) for orders in respect of the order of the learned Resident Magistrate (Hon. A.N. Sisenda) in which she allowed the prosecution to withdraw a charge of being drunk and disorderly contrary to section 33(1) as read with section33(2) of the Alcoholic Drinks Control Act No. 4 of 2010. The cash bail of the respondents was forfeited, after the respondents absconded. Following the withdrawal of the charge under section 87(a) of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cap.75) Laws of Kenya, the learned Resident Magistrate ordered the warrants of arrest to rein in force.
2. In her report to this court the Chief Magistrate has indicated that the trial court lacked jurisdiction to entertain and determine this matter. In this regard, the definition of “magistrate” in the interpretation section of the Alcoholic Drinks Control Act in section 2 means “A magistrate who is above the rank of the Resident Magistrate.”
3. It therefore follows that Hon. Sisenda who holds the rank of Resident Magistrate did not have jurisdiction to entertain and determine this matter.
4. It also follows that the order made by the learned Resident Magistrate that the warrants of arrest will remain in force is null and void.
5. In the circumstances the said order is hereby set aside.
6. Orders accordingly.
Order on revision dated this 7th day of December, 2018
J.M. BWONWONGA
JUDGE
7/12/2018