https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/11180
The court examined the lower court record, its earlier judgment, and the respondent’s appeal submissions and found that the earlier decision proceeded on the mistaken assumption that two different magistrates handled the trial. That was an error apparent on the face of the record, warranting correction.
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2026] KEHC 11180 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Republic; Respondent: Daudi Mohamed
- Court
- High Court
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Criminal Revision E047 of 2026
- Procedural Posture
- High Court Criminal Revision / Ruling on Application for Review/correction of Judgment
- Outcome
- Application allowed
- Judges
- ["JN Njagi"]
- Legal Topics
- Review/correction of Judgment, Error Apparent on the Face of the Record, Section 200 Criminal Procedure Code, Retrial, Change of Trial Magistrate
- 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
Daudi Mohamed
Respondent
Procedural Posture
High Court Criminal Revision / Ruling on Application for Review/correction of Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether there was an error apparent on the face of the record in the earlier judgment
- 2 Whether the trial was in fact conducted by two different magistrates or by the same magistrate under two names
- 3 Whether the earlier order for retrial based on alleged non-compliance with section 200(3) should stand
Ratio Decidendi
The court examined the lower court record, its earlier judgment, and the respondent’s appeal submissions and found that the earlier decision proceeded on the mistaken assumption that two different magistrates handled the trial. That was an error apparent on the face of the record, warranting correction.
Court Disposition
Application allowed
Orders
- The court reviewed/corrected its judgment/sentence delivered on 8th May 2026 to rectify the error regarding the identity of the trial magistrate(s).
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
**REPUBLIC OF KENYA** **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA** **AT GARSEN** **HIGH COURT CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO.E047 OF 2026** **REPUBLIC………………….…….………………….………. APPLICANT** **VERSUS** **DAUDI MOHAMED………..…….…………..…….…….RESPONDENT** **RULING** 1. The Applicant, office of the Director of Public prosecutions, has filed an application dated 28th May 2026 seeking that this court reviews/correct its judgment/sentence delivered on 8th May 2026 and correct an error apparent on the face of the judgement to the effect that the trial at the lower court -Mpeketoni Law Courts was handled by two different magistrates – Aon R.M Chesoni and Hon.R.C Mwachi. 2. The application was supported by the affidavit of the Prosecutor who handled the case at the lower court, Abel Omariba, sworn on the 28th May 2026 in which he depones that it is not true that the case was handled by two different magistrates as Hon.R.M.Chesoni and Hon.R.C.Mwachi refer to the same person. It was deponed that the court mistook the same magistrate as two different people and ordered a retrial on that basis. It was deposed that this is an error apparent on the face of the record. 3. The Respondent opposed the application for revision on the ground that the prosecution counsel only points typing errors in the judgment without considering the issues of fact and law raised in the amended grounds of appeal. That the judge only erred in typing errors and not in the facts/issues raised in the amended grounds. The Respondent urged the court to dismiss the application. 4. I have perused the lower courts file, my judgment delivered on the 8th May 2026 and the Respondent’s submissions in his appeal in Garsen High Court No. E004/2025. The Respondent in his submissions during the appeal submitted that the court record indicated that the case was handled by two different magistrtae’s – Hon.R.M Chesoni and R.C.Mwachi. That Hon.R.M Chesoni heard the evidence of 3 witnesses and that Hon.R.C Mwachi took over the case and heard the evidence of 2 witnesses. That Hon.R.C Mwachi did not comply with the provisions of Section 200(3) when he took over the case from Hon.R.N.Chesoni. The court in its judgment indicated that the magistrates there Hon.E.K. **Ruling delivered, dated and signed at GARSEN this 21st July 2026.** **J.N.NJAGI** **JUDGE** **In the presence of:** **Ms. Mkongo for Respondent** **Applicant – present virtually** Court Assistant – Jumaa