[2006] KEHC 579 (KLR)
The court found that the resident magistrate at Maua did not properly apply section 210 of the Criminal Procedure Code, as the dismissal was made before all evidence was tendered and before submissions by both parties. This failure to follow the prescribed procedure constituted a miscarriage of justice....
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2006] KEHC 579 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Republic; Respondent: Jacob Koome Maore
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Meru
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Criminal Revision 101 of 2006
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Revision / Revision of Dismissal at Trial Court
- Outcome
- Case remitted for hearing de novo before a different magistrate.
- Legal Topics
- Criminal Trial Procedure, Dismissal of Charges, Section 210 Cpc, Miscarriage of Justice
- 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
Jacob Koome Maore
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Criminal Revision / Revision of Dismissal at Trial Court
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the dismissal of the prosecution's case under section 210 of the Criminal Procedure Code was proper in the circumstances.
- 2 Whether the trial magistrate applied the correct legal standard before dismissing the case.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the resident magistrate at Maua did not properly apply section 210 of the Criminal Procedure Code, as the dismissal was made before all evidence was tendered and before submissions by both parties. This failure to follow the prescribed procedure constituted a miscarriage of justice. Consequently, the High Court ordered that the case be remitted for a fresh hearing before a different magistrate.
Court Disposition
Case remitted for hearing de novo before a different magistrate.
Orders
- The case is remitted back to the Principal Magistrate’s Court at Maua for hearing de novo.
- The hearing shall be conducted by a magistrate other than Mr. D. Morara.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
19 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA
AT MERU
Criminal Revision 101 of 2006
REPUBLIC ……………..………………………..……. PROSECUTOR
VERSUS
JACOB KOOME MAORE …....…………………………….. ACCUSED
ORDER
(Being Revision arising from dismissal in Maua PM’s Court Criminal Case No.2868 of 2006 dated 14. 11. 2006)
This matter emanates from Maua Principal Magistrate’s Court Criminal Case No. 2868 of 2006 – Republic –Vs – Jacob Koome Maore.
The resident magistrate at Maua, Mr. D. Morara dismissed the case on 13. 11. 2006 on the ground that the witness, PW1, looked confused. The dismissal was purportedly made under section 210 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CPC) which provides as follows:-
“210. If at the close of the evidence in support of the charge, and after hearing such summing up, submission or argument as the prosecutor and the accused person or his advocate may wish to put forward, it appears to the court that a case is not made out against the accused person sufficiently to require him to make a defence, the court shall dismiss the case and shall forthwith acquit him.”
A dismissal under section 210 of the CPC cannot be made unless and until the whole evidence has been tendered and submissions made for by both parties, but not in the circumstances of this case.
In this case, the learned resident magistrate did not apply his mind judicially to the relevant section and consequently caused a miscarriage of justice by dismissing the prosecution’s case in purported application of section 210 of the C.P.C.
Accordingly, I order that this case be remitted back to the Principal Magistrate’s court at Maua for hearing de novo. The hearing should be conducted by a magistrate other than Mr. D. Morara.
Orders accordingly.
Dated at Meru this 30th day of November 2006.
RUTH N. SITATI
JUDGE