[2004] KEHC 353 (KLR)
The court found that although there were several defects in the form of the application and unexplained delays in seeking leave to appeal, the substantive merits of the case warranted the exercise of judicial discretion in favour of the applicant. The matter involved the welfare of children, and the appeal raised a...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2004] KEHC 353 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Republic; Respondent: Patricia Musau Kimeu
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Machakos
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- ? 51 of 2004
- Procedural Posture
- Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application for Leave to File Appeal Out of Time
- Outcome
- application allowed
- Judges
- RPV Wendoh
- Legal Topics
- Extension of Time, Appeals Process, Children Court Procedure, Best Interests of Child
- 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
Patricia Musau Kimeu
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application for Leave to File Appeal Out of Time
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the Attorney General should be granted leave to file an appeal out of time against the acquittal of the respondent in a children's court matter.
- 2 Whether the delay in filing the application for leave was inordinate and unexplained.
- 3 Whether defects in the form of the application and supporting affidavit prejudiced the respondent.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that although there were several defects in the form of the application and unexplained delays in seeking leave to appeal, the substantive merits of the case warranted the exercise of judicial discretion in favour of the applicant. The matter involved the welfare of children, and the appeal raised a question of law regarding the constitution of the court at the time of the respondent's acquittal. The court held that, in the interests of justice and the best interests of the children, the application for leave to file the appeal out of time should be allowed, notwithstanding the procedural irregularities and delay.
Court Disposition
application allowed
Orders
- Leave is granted to the applicant to file the appeal out of time.
- The appellant is given 14 days to prepare and place the appeal record before the judge for admission and for a hearing date to be set.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
22 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT MACHAKOS
MISC CRIMI APPLI 51 OF 2004
(From original Protection and Discipline case No. 7 of 2003 of the Senior
Principal Magistrate’s Court at Machakos: P. M. Muriuki Esq. )
REPUBLIC ……………………………………………………….…... APPLICANT
VERSUS
PATRICIA MUSAU KIMEU …………………………………….. RESPONDENT
R U L I N G
Before me for hearing was the application by the Attorney General dated 13. 9.94 seeking leave of this court to be granted to the Attorney General so that they can file appeal out of time. The application is supported by the affidavit of the Learned State Counsel Moses O’mirera.
Briefly the applicants case is that the respondent had been charged before the Children’s Court – Protection and Discipline7/2003. He was acquitted on 29. 1.04 under Section 210 Criminal Procedure Code and that the Children’s Officer applied for proceedings but the file went missing. A reminder was sent to the Deputy Registrar and proceedings were then forwarded to them on 6. 7.2004 but were received on 27. 8.2004. It is the State Counsels view that there has not been inordinate delay in filing this matter. It his this view that the appeal raises a question of law and the application should be allowed to enable them file their appeal.
The application was opposed and a replying affidavit was sworn by the Respondent Patrick Kimeu. The main ground of opposition is that there has been inordinate and an explained delay in filing of the appeal.
I have carefully considered this application and my first observation is that though the State Counsel submitted that the Children’s officer applied for proceedings of the lower court after the order of dismissal was made, there is no evidence to that effect.
The first application for proceedings is that of 3. 3.2004. This was just over a month since the dismissal order was made. There is no explanation for that delay.
The said application for proceedings was made to the Deputy Registrar which I do agree was irregular. This was a lower court case and the person charged with responsibility of availing proceedings would have been the Chief Magistrate or Executive Officer. Deputy Registrar is an officer who deals with matters of the High Court. This misdirection of the letter must have contributed to the delay.
As per the certificate of delay dated 2. 9.2004, it is apparent that these proceedings were typed by 6. 7.2004 but the court does accept blame that they were wrongly dispatched but they were forwarded to Attorney General’s office on 27. 8.2004. The State Counsel however admits having received the proceedings by 29. 7.2004 contrary to the contents of the certificate of delay. So, even having received the proceedings on 29. 7.2004 the applicants did not file this application till 5. 9.2004. There was a delay over 1½ months. Again this delay is not explained by the State Counsel.
I do agree with Respondent counsel that the proceedings of the lower court were not properly introduced because they are not referred to in the affidavit in support of the application. That be as it may, I believe the failure to mention the proceedings in the affidavit has not prejudiced the respondent. Proceedings of the lower court are necessary for such application and the court can still allow a filing of a further affidavit to have them introduced. There is no evidence that they are not the proper record of the lower court.
Indeed this application was riddled with several defects as to form but the court has also to look at the merits. I do note that the appeal does raise a question of law in that the court was not properly constituted when the order of dismissal was made as the clerk and court prosecutor were absent. Further to the above this was a case relating to children. This case was dismissed before it was heard. This being a children’s matter it is only fair that the matter be given a chance to be canvassed fully, so that the orders made should only be in the best interest of the children. Despite the inordinate delay in bringing the application the court finds that for the ends of justice to be met, it is only fair that this application be allowed.
I therefore allow the application to have the appeal filed out of time and the appellant is given 14 days within which to have the appeal record prepared and placed before the judge for admission so that a hearing date can be taken thereafter. Orders accordingly.
Dated at Machakos this 9th day of November 2004.
R. V. WENDOH
JUDGE