[2002] KEHC 322 (KLR)

[2002] KEHC 322 (KLR)

The court held that the order made by the trial magistrate under section 210 of the Criminal Procedure Code was an acquittal, which constitutes a judgment. According to section 364(5) of the Criminal Procedure Code, no proceedings by way of revision can be entertained against an order of acquittal. Therefore, the...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2002] KEHC 322 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: Republic; Respondent: John Mwaura and 4 others
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Commercial Courts)
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Criminal Revision 18 of 2002
Procedural Posture
Criminal Revision / Ruling on Application for Review of Acquittal
Outcome
application dismissed
Judges
A Mbogholi-Msagha
Legal Topics
Acquittal Procedure, Criminal Revision Jurisdiction, Finality of Judgments
Source Language
en
Criminal Law Civil Procedure Acquittal Procedure Criminal Revision Jurisdiction Finality of Judgments

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Downloadable case file Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Republic

Applicant

John Mwaura and 4 others

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Revision / Ruling on Application for Review of Acquittal

  1. 1 Whether the High Court can entertain a revision application against an acquittal order made under section 210 of the Criminal Procedure Code.
  2. 2 Whether the Attorney General should have appealed instead of seeking revision.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the order made by the trial magistrate under section 210 of the Criminal Procedure Code was an acquittal, which constitutes a judgment. According to section 364(5) of the Criminal Procedure Code, no proceedings by way of revision can be entertained against an order of acquittal. Therefore, the Attorney General's application for review was procedurally improper, and the only available remedy was to appeal the acquittal. The application for review was thus dismissed as misconceived and incompetent.

Court Disposition

application dismissed

Orders

  • The application for review is dismissed.