[2018] KEHC 210 (KLR)
The High Court determined that, since the alleged offence was committed at Olenguruoni and the nearest court to that location is the Chief Magistrate's Court at Molo, it is in the interest of convenience for parties and witnesses that the trial be conducted at Molo rather than Narok. The court exercised its...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2018] KEHC 210 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Republic; Respondent: Enock Kipkorir Rono; Respondent: Robert Korir Kibet; Respondent: Weldon Kiprotich Rono; Respondent: Nicholas Kimutai Ngeno; Respondent: Patrick Korir Kiplangat; Respondent: Amos Rono; Respondent: Cosmas Mutai
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Narok
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Criminal Revision 137 of 2018
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Revision / Ruling on Trial Venue Reference
- Outcome
- case transferred to the Chief Magistrate's Court at Molo for hearing and determination
- Legal Topics
- Trial Venue, Jurisdiction of Courts, Transfer of Criminal Cases
- 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
Enock Kipkorir Rono
Respondent
Robert Korir Kibet
Respondent
Weldon Kiprotich Rono
Respondent
Nicholas Kimutai Ngeno
Respondent
Patrick Korir Kiplangat
Respondent
Amos Rono
Respondent
Cosmas Mutai
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Criminal Revision / Ruling on Trial Venue Reference
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the Chief Magistrate's Court at Narok is the appropriate venue for the trial of the respondents charged with preparation to commit a felony.
- 2 Whether the High Court should direct the transfer of the case to another court for the convenience of parties or witnesses.
Ratio Decidendi
The High Court determined that, since the alleged offence was committed at Olenguruoni and the nearest court to that location is the Chief Magistrate's Court at Molo, it is in the interest of convenience for parties and witnesses that the trial be conducted at Molo rather than Narok. The court exercised its statutory power under section 81 of the Criminal Procedure Code to transfer the case, finding that the requirements for such a transfer were met. The decision was guided by the principle that trials should ordinarily be held within the local limits of the offence's occurrence, unless convenience or justice dictates otherwise.
Court Disposition
case transferred to the Chief Magistrate's Court at Molo for hearing and determination
Orders
- The case is transferred to the Chief Magistrate's Court at Molo for hearing and determination.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
26 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT NAROK
CRIMINAL REVISION NO 137 OF 2018
REPUBLIC....................................................................APPLICANT
VERSUS
ENOCK KIPKORIR RONO...............................1ST RESPONENT
ROBERT KORIR KIBET...............................2ND RESPONDENT
WELDON KIPROTICH RONO.....................3RD RESPONDENT
NICHOLAS KIMUTAI NGENO....................4TH RESPONDENT
PATRICK KORIR KIPLANGAT...................5TH RESPONDENT
AMOS RONO...................................................6TH RESPONDENT
COSMAS MUTAI...............................................7TH RESPONDNT
(Being a reference from the trial court in Criminal Case No.1070 of 2018 of the Chief Magistrate’s court at Narok, 1. Enock Kipkorir Rono 2. Robert Korir Kibet 3. Weldon Kiprotich Rono 4. Nicholas Kimutai Ngeno 5. Patrick Korir Kiplangat 6. Amos Rono 7. Cosmas Mutai v. R)
RULING
1. The trial court pursuant to its powers under section 81(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 75) Laws of Kenya has sought directions in respect of the trial venue.
2. The issue raised in this instant reference is whether the Chief Magistrate’s court in Narok should try and determine the case of the respondents who are charged with the offence of preparation to commit a felony contrary to section 308 (1) of the Penal Code (Cap 63) Laws of Kenya. In the particulars of the charge, it is alleged that: “on the 25th day of September 2018 at about 1930 hours at Olenguruoni District within Nakuru County were jointly armed with dangerous/offensive weapons namely 1. Five bows 2. Twenty six arrows 3. One spear 4. One panga in circumstances that indicated you were so armed with intent to commit a felony to wit Grievous Harm.”
3. The venue of trial of persons charged with the offences is governed by section 71 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The provisions of that section state as follows: “subject to the provisions of section 69, and to the powers of transfer conferred by section 79 and 81, every offence shall ordinarily be tried by a court within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the accused was apprehended, or is in custody on a charge for the offence, or has appeared in answer to a summons lawfully issued charging the offence.”
4. Furthermore, under section 81(1)(c ) and (d), the High Court is empowered to direct the venue of the trial of the respondents where that venue would tend to the general convenience of the parties or witnesses. A transfer may also be ordered by this court if the view of the place where offence may have been committed is necessary. (see MPS Boghan v. R, (1951) 18 EACA 152).
5. In the light of the foregoing, it appears that the offence is alleged to have been committed at Olenguruoni. And the nearest court to Olenguruoni is the Chief magistrate’s court at Molo.
6. In the circumstances, I find that the chief magistrate’s court at Molo is a convenient trial venue for the hearing and determination of this case.
7. I therefore order this case to be transferred to that court for hearing and determination.
It is so ordered.
Order dated and signed at Narok this 20th day of December 2018.
J. M. Bwonwonga
Judge
20/12/2018