REPUBLIC v STEPHEN MBAE M’RITHAA [2013] KEHC 4379 (KLR)
- Citation
- [2013] KEHC 4379 (KLR)
- Status
- Judgment
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Court
- High Court
- Posture
- Criminal Appeal / Ruling on Withdrawal of Appeal
- Case number
- Criminal Case 224 of 2001
- Language
- English
More details
- Court
- High Court
- Posture
- Criminal Appeal / Ruling on Withdrawal of Appeal
- Case number
- Criminal Case 224 of 2001
- Language
- English
On this page
Professional case brief
Research organized from the available case record
01
Holding and result
The court found that the appeal, filed in 2001, had not been served upon the Respondent and that there had been inordinate and inexcusable delay in prosecuting it. In light of the State Counsel's submission that the State no longer wished to pursue the appeal and the application to withdraw, the court exercised its discretion to dismiss the appeal and close the file.
Court disposition
appeal dismissed
Orders
- The appeal is dismissed.
- The file is closed.
02
Material facts
Parties
Republic
Appellant Counsel: MungaiStephen Mbae M’Rithaa
Respondent03
Procedural history
Posture
Criminal Appeal / Ruling on Withdrawal of Appeal
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
- 01
Whether the appeal should be dismissed due to inordinate and inexcusable delay in prosecution.
- 02
Whether the State's application to withdraw the appeal should be granted.
Party arguments
- Applicant
- The State, through Mr. Mungai, indicated that the appeal had not been served upon the Respondent and that the State no longer wished to pursue the appeal. An application was made to withdraw the appeal.
- Respondent
- The Respondent was not present and did not make any submissions.
05
Court’s reasoning
Legal principles
- 01
Court's inherent powers; Criminal Procedure Code
An appeal may be dismissed where there is inordinate and inexcusable delay in prosecution and where the appellant applies to withdraw the appeal.
06
Ratio, limits and disposition
Ratio decidendi
The court found that the appeal, filed in 2001, had not been served upon the Respondent and that there had been inordinate and inexcusable delay in prosecuting it. In light of the State Counsel's submission that the State no longer wished to pursue the appeal and the application to withdraw, the court exercised its discretion to dismiss the appeal and close the file.
Court disposition
appeal dismissed
- The appeal is dismissed.
- The file is closed.
Source and reliance status
High Court
This page organises the available record for research. Confirm quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the official source before relying on the case.
Judgment reading view
Judgment text
The complete available source text.
High Court
Judgment
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
High Court at Meru
Criminal Case 224 of 2001 [if gte mso 9]><xml>
14. 00
800x600
</xml><![endif]
REPUBLIC.....................................................................................APPELLANT
VERSUS
STEPHEN MBAE M’RITHAA...................................................RESPONDENT
R U L I N G
20. 3.2013
Lesiit Judge
Kirimi/Jane C.C.
Mungai for State/Appellant
No appearance for Respondent
Mr. Mungai: This appeal was filed by the State. We have not served the Respondent. The state no longer wishes to pursue the Appeal. I apply to withdraw the same.
LESIIT, J.
JUDGE
COURT:This appeal was filed in 2001. The State has not served it upon the Respondent. There has been inordinate and inexcusable delay in prosecuting it. In view of the learned State Counsel’s submission the appeal is dismissed and the file closed.
DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED THIS 20TH DAY OF MARCH 2013
LESIIT, J.
JUDGE.
Case-aware research
Ask AI about this case
The judgment and available research above are public. New questions open in a separate private conversation grounded in this case.