[2006] KEHC 1565 (KLR)
The court found that the trial magistrate failed to conduct any proceedings or hear evidence before closing the inquest file, contrary to the requirements of section 387 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The magistrate's purported ruling was merely a comment and not a proper judicial determination. Exercising its...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2006] KEHC 1565 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Republic; Respondent: Charles M'Twamwari
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Meru
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Criminal Revision 88 of 2006
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Revision / Ruling
- Outcome
- Ruling of the trial magistrate set aside; inquest to be reopened and conducted by Principal Magistrate's Court Nkubu.
- Legal Topics
- Criminal Revision, Inquest Procedure, Powers of High Court
- 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
Charles M'Twamwari
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Criminal Revision / Ruling
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the trial magistrate erred by closing the inquest file without conducting any proceedings or hearing evidence.
- 2 Whether the magistrate's comment constituted a proper ruling under the Criminal Procedure Code.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the trial magistrate failed to conduct any proceedings or hear evidence before closing the inquest file, contrary to the requirements of section 387 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The magistrate's purported ruling was merely a comment and not a proper judicial determination. Exercising its revisionary jurisdiction under section 362 of the Criminal Procedure Code, the High Court set aside the magistrate's order closing the inquest and directed that the inquest be reopened and conducted properly by the Principal Magistrate's Court at Nkubu.
Court Disposition
Ruling of the trial magistrate set aside; inquest to be reopened and conducted by Principal Magistrate's Court Nkubu.
Orders
- The ruling of the learned trial magistrate ordering closure of the inquest file is revised and set aside.
- The inquest is to be reopened and conducted by the Principal Magistrate's Court Nkubu.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
15 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA
AT MERU
Criminal Revision 88 of 2006
REPUBLIC ………………….…………..…………………………….. APPLICANT
VERSUS
CHARLES M’TWAMWARI ………………………………………… RESPONDENT
RULING
This is an application by the state for revision of the learned trial magistrate’s ruling dated 12. 9.2005. The ground for the application is that the learned trial magistrate reached a conclusion without hearing the evidence of any single witness, and further that the purported ruling was by way of a comment and not a ruling.
Section 362 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CPC) gives this court the power to call for and examine the record of any criminal proceedings before any subordinate court for the purpose of satisfying itself as to the correctness, legality or propriety of any finding, etc, I have examined the record in inquest file No. 1 of 2005 and find that no proceedings were ever conducted by the learned magistrate as provided under section 387 of the CPC. The magistrate’s opinion could only have been recorded at the close of the inquiry and not otherwise.
In the circumstances, I do revise the ruling of the learned trial magistrate ordering closure of the inquest file and in exercise of the powers conferred upon me by the provisions of section 362 of the CPC order re-opening of the inquest to be conducted by the Principal Magistrate’s Court Nkubu.
Orders accordingly.
Dated and delivered at Meru this 1st Day of August 2006.
RUTH N. SITATI
J U D G E