[2018] KEHC 9437 (KLR)
The High Court lacks jurisdiction to set aside or reverse an order of acquittal in a criminal revision application under Sections 362 and 364 of the Criminal Procedure Code. Section 364(4) expressly prohibits the High Court from converting an acquittal into a conviction or otherwise interfering with an acquittal...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2018] KEHC 9437 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Republic; Respondent: Samuel Karonjo Rurigi
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Criminal Revision 147 of 2016
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Revision / Ruling on Application for Revision of Acquittal
- Outcome
- application dismissed
- Judges
- LK Kimaru
- Legal Topics
- Criminal Revision Jurisdiction, Acquittal Orders, Powers of High Court, Appeal Vs Revision
- 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
Samuel Karonjo Rurigi
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Criminal Revision / Ruling on Application for Revision of Acquittal
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the High Court has jurisdiction to set aside an order of acquittal in a criminal revision application under Sections 362 and 364 of the Criminal Procedure Code.
- 2 Whether the trial magistrate erred in acquitting the accused under Section 202 of the Criminal Procedure Code due to the absence of the complainant.
Ratio Decidendi
The High Court lacks jurisdiction to set aside or reverse an order of acquittal in a criminal revision application under Sections 362 and 364 of the Criminal Procedure Code. Section 364(4) expressly prohibits the High Court from converting an acquittal into a conviction or otherwise interfering with an acquittal through revision. The only remedy available to the prosecution in such circumstances is to file an appeal against the acquittal. Consequently, the prosecution's application for revision is without merit and must be dismissed.
Court Disposition
application dismissed
Orders
- The application for revision is dismissed.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
20 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT NAIROBI
CRIMINAL DIVISION
CRIMINAL REVISION NO.147 OF 2016
(An Application for Revision arising out of the decision of E. MICHIEKA –SRM delivered on 15th April 2016 in Kikuyu PMC CR. Case No.197 of 2015 (Republic –Vs- Samuel Karanja Rurigi)
REPUBLIC..........................................................................APPLICANT
VERSUS
SAMUEL KARONJO RURIGI.....................................RESPONDENT
RULING
The prosecution was aggrieved by the decision of the trial court in acquitting the accused (the Respondent) under Section 202 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The prosecution has invoked this court’s jurisdiction under Section 362 and 364 of the Criminal Procedure Code seeking to have the verdict reversed. The prosecution argues that the trial magistrate erred when he acquitted the accused under Section 202 of the Criminal Procedure Code allegedly on account of the absence of the complainant. The prosecution explained that it was not aware that the case had been scheduled on the day that the order of acquittal was made. If it was made aware, it would have availed the prosecution witnesses. The prosecution was aggrieved that the trial magistrate had not taken into account the antecedents of the case before reaching the verdict that it is seeking to impeach. In particular, the prosecution complained that the trial magistrate did not take into consideration the fact that on several occasions prior to the order of acquittal, the accused had sought, and was granted several adjournments for one reason or the other. It was of the view that the accused sought the said adjournments for the sole purpose of frustrating and derailing the hearing of the case.
This court has considered the application by the prosecution seeking to revise the decision of the trial magistrate. Section 364(1)(b) of the Criminal Procedure Code provides thus:
“In the case of a proceeding in a subordinate court the record of which has been called for or which has been reported for orders, or which otherwise comes to its knowledge, the High Court may –
(a)...
(b) In case of any other order other than an order of acquittal, alter and reverse the order.” (Underlining mine)
Section 364(4) emphasizes that:
“Nothing in this section shall be deemed to authorize the High Court to convert a finding of acquittal into one of conviction.”
It is clear from the foregoing provision that the order craved for by the prosecution cannot be granted in an application for revision under Section 362 and 364 of the Criminal Procedure Code. This court has no powers to set aside an order of acquittal in an application for revision. The only remedy available to the prosecution is to appeal against that decision. The application for revision therefore lacks merit and is hereby dismissed.
DATED AT NAIROBI THIS 3RD DAY OF AUGUST 2018
L. KIMARU
JUDGE