[2006] KEHC 578 (KLR)
The High 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 presented and before submissions by both parties. This failure to follow the statutory procedure resulted in a miscarriage of justice. The...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2006] KEHC 578 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Republic; Respondent: Miriam Kendi Ali; Respondent: Fridah Kathure Maroka
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Meru
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- ? 98 of 2006
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Revision / Order on Revision of Dismissal at Trial Court
- Outcome
- Case remitted for hearing de novo before a different magistrate.
- Legal Topics
- Criminal Revision, Dismissal of Charges, Application of Section 210 Cpc
- 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
Miriam Kendi Ali
Respondent
Fridah Kathure Maroka
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Criminal Revision / Order on Revision of Dismissal at Trial Court
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the trial magistrate properly applied section 210 of the Criminal Procedure Code in dismissing the case.
- 2 Whether the dismissal of the prosecution's case before all evidence and submissions constituted a miscarriage of justice.
Ratio Decidendi
The High 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 presented and before submissions by both parties. This failure to follow the statutory procedure resulted in a miscarriage of justice. The court held that the dismissal was irregular and that the matter should 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
20 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA
AT MERU
Criminal Revison 98 of 2006
REPUBLIC ………………...………..........…………. PROSECUTOR
VERSUS
MIRIAM KENDI ALI …… ………………..........….. 1ST ACCUSED
FRIDAH KATHURE MAROKA ………………….. 2ND ACCUSED
ORDER
(Being revision arising from dismissal in Maua PM’s Court Criminal Case No. 1541 of 2006 – dated 13. 11. 2006)
This matter emanates from Maua Principal Magistrate’s Court Criminal Case No. 1541 of 2006 – Republic –Vs – Miriam Kendi Ali & another.
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 order under section 210 of the CPC cannot be made unless and until the whole evidence has been tendered and submissions made by both parties.
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 under the wrong section.
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