[2015] KEHC 5742 (KLR)
The High Court found that the prosecution had been granted multiple opportunities to present its case over a period of nearly three years, with repeated absences of the investigating officer often unexplained or inadequately justified. The trial court had previously warned that the adjournment granted on 19th...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2015] KEHC 5742 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Republic; Respondent: Geoffrey Njathi Ndungu
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Naivasha
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Criminal Revision 12 of 2015
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Revision / Ruling on Application for Revision of Lower Court Order Denying Adjournment
- Outcome
- application for revision rejected
- Judges
- CW Meoli
- Legal Topics
- Adjournment of Proceedings, Prosecutorial Delay, Revision Jurisdiction, Trial Management
- 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
Geoffrey Njathi Ndungu
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Criminal Revision / Ruling on Application for Revision of Lower Court Order Denying Adjournment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the trial court erred in denying the prosecution an adjournment and closing the prosecution case.
- 2 Whether the High Court should exercise its revisionary jurisdiction under Section 364 of the Criminal Procedure Code to intervene in the lower court's order.
Ratio Decidendi
The High Court found that the prosecution had been granted multiple opportunities to present its case over a period of nearly three years, with repeated absences of the investigating officer often unexplained or inadequately justified. The trial court had previously warned that the adjournment granted on 19th August, 2014 would be the last. The subsequent absence of the investigating officer on 26th January, 2015, without satisfactory explanation, justified the trial court's refusal to grant a further adjournment and its decision to close the prosecution case. The High Court held that there was no basis for intervention under its revisionary jurisdiction, as there was no illegality or...
Court Disposition
application for revision rejected
Orders
- The request for revision is rejected.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
17 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT NAIVASHA
CRIMINAL REVISION NO. 12 OF 2015
(Original Criminal Case No. 945 of 2012 of the Chief Magistrate’s Court at Naivasha)
REPUBLIC……………………………………………………PROSECUTOR
-VERSUS-
GEOFFREY NJATHI NDUNGU….………………………...............ACCUSED
RULING ON REVISION
This matter was placed before me based on a request by the Director of Public Prosecutions dated 23rd February, 2015. The subject matter of the request is the lower court’s order of 26th January, 2015 denying an adjournment to the prosecution and forcing closure of the prosecution case.
This court has been requested to intervene under Section 364 of the Criminal Procedure Code. Having perused the proceedings of the trial in the lower court, I am disinclined to intervene in this matter for the following reasons:
The Criminal Case commenced in 2012 and has dragged on for various reasons attributable to both the prosecution and the defence.
The record shows that the investigating officer did not attend court on 29/4/2014, 23/6/2014, 19/8/2014, 23/10/2014 and lastly on 26th January, 2015 when the impugned order was made by the lower court.
In the initial instances no explanation was given for the absence. Other varied reasons subsequently given for the absence appear trifled and unsatisfactory.The trial court was entitled to reject the prosecution application for adjournment on 26/1/2015, having granted them what was declared as a last adjournment on 19/8/2014.
The DCIO’s letter dated 11/2/2015 and affidavit by the investigating officer sworn on the same date do not explain the latter’s persistent absence from the trial. Justice delayed is justice denied. The prosecution was sufficiently accommodated to present all its witnesses within the period of close to three (3) years that the case has been pending in court. The request for revision is therefore rejected.
Delivered and signed at Naivasha this 4th day of March, 2015
C. W. MEOLI
JUDGE