[2024] KEHC 6826 (KLR)
The court held that the accused persons' initial appearance before the Magistrate's Court did not violate the Constitution or the law, as Article 49 only requires that an arrested person be brought before a court within 24 hours, not specifically the High Court. The delay in charging and taking plea, while...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2024] KEHC 6826 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Republic; Respondent: Snaida Achiemo Obaga; Respondent: Caroline Betty Mwakingele
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Voi
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Criminal Case E002 of 2024
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Case / Ruling on Notice of Motion for Release and Withdrawal of Charges Prior to Plea
- Outcome
- application dismissed
- Judges
- GMA Dulu
- Legal Topics
- Pretrial Detention, Right to Be Charged, Bail and Bond, Constitutional Rights
- 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
Snaida Achiemo Obaga
Respondent
Caroline Betty Mwakingele
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Criminal Case / Ruling on Notice of Motion for Release and Withdrawal of Charges Prior to Plea
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the accused persons' initial arraignment before the Magistrate's Court instead of the High Court violated their constitutional rights.
- 2 Whether the delay in charging and taking plea for over three months renders the criminal process irregular or unconstitutional.
- 3 Whether the accused persons are entitled to immediate release and withdrawal of the criminal case.
Ratio Decidendi
The court held that the accused persons' initial appearance before the Magistrate's Court did not violate the Constitution or the law, as Article 49 only requires that an arrested person be brought before a court within 24 hours, not specifically the High Court. The delay in charging and taking plea, while regrettable, did not render the process unconstitutional or irregular. The court found no basis for granting the orders sought for immediate release or withdrawal of the criminal case. The application was therefore dismissed, but the court affirmed its jurisdiction to consider any bail or bond application during the proceedings.
Court Disposition
application dismissed
Orders
- The application for immediate and unconditional release of the accused persons is dismissed.
- The application for withdrawal of the criminal case is dismissed.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
28 paragraphs
Republic v Obaga & another (Criminal Case E002 of 2024) [2024] KEHC 6826 (KLR) (2 May 2024) (Ruling)
Neutral citation: [2024] KEHC 6826 (KLR)
Republic of Kenya
In the High Court at Voi
Criminal Case E002 of 2024
GMA Dulu, J
May 2, 2024
Between
Republic
Prosecutor
and
Snaida Achiemo Obaga
1st Accused
Caroline Betty Mwakingele
2nd Accused
Ruling
1. An information for murder has been filed in this court against both accused persons Snaida Achiemo Obaga and Caroline Betty Mwakingele who allegedly murdered Mercy Zighe Koronge on 31st January 2024.
2. The accused persons have not taken plea yet as they have not yet been certified mentally fit to plead.
3. In the meantime, counsel for the accused persons A. C. Knight & Associates Advocates filed a Notice of Motion dated 16th April 2024 seeking the following orders:-1. (Spent).2. That the two accused/applicants be released immediately and unconditionally.3. That the criminal case against the two accused/applicants be withdrawn forthwith.
4. The above is the application subject of the present ruling.
5. The application has grounds on the fact of the Notice of Motion and was filed with a supporting affidavit sworn by each of the accused/applicants.
6. The application was canvassed through oral submissions, which I have considered.
7. It is apparent that the complaint of the accused/applicants is that they were taken to the Wundanyi court initially and not the High Court, and secondly that they have not been formally charged or taken plea to date, a period of more than three (3) months now.
8. In my view, the application is misplaced and cannot be successful. The first reason is that the law and the Constitution under Article 49, only requires that an arrested person be taken to a court within 24 hours of arrest, not necessarily the High Court and may be charged or informed the reason of their arrest. Thus the fact that the accused/applicants were initially taken to the Wundanyi Magistrate’s court was not a violation of the Constitution or the law, nor did it render the court process null and void.
9. Secondly, a person who has been arrested has a right under Article 49(h) to be released on bond/bail even at the police station, not necessarily in court. Thus, bail can be requested at any point either at the police station or any court where an arrested person appears, and such request will be dealt with appropriately at that point, and if he is dissatisfied with the decision reached thereat, he can challenge the decision made on bail/bond before a higher tribunal.
10. As such, the complaints disclosed to me presently, do not constitute an irregular or unconstitutional criminal process. I thus decline to issue any of the orders sought in the application.
11. I dismiss the application, but emphasize that this court has jurisdiction to consider any bail/bond application now or hereafter during the pendency of these criminal proceedings.
DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED THIS 2ND DAY OF MAY 2024 IN OPEN COURT AT VOI.GEORGE DULUJUDGEIn the presence of:-Alfred – Court AssistantMr. Sirima for the StateMs. Akoko for the accusedBoth accused persons