Samuel Murage Maina v Republic [2021] KEHC 9090 (KLR)
- Citation
- [2021] KEHC 9090 (KLR)
- Status
- Judgment
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Court
- High Court
- Panel
- A Mshila
- Case number
- Criminal Revision 140 of 2020
- Language
- English
More details
- Court
- High Court
- Panel
- A Mshila
- Case number
- Criminal Revision 140 of 2020
- Language
- English
On this page
Professional case brief
Research organized from the available case record
01
Holding and result
The court found that the applicant had not demonstrated any illegality, irregularity, or impropriety in the proceedings before the Mukuruweini Law Courts. The application was improperly brought as a revision rather than a standard transfer application. Upon perusal of the lower court record, the High Court found no basis for intervention under its revisionary jurisdiction. Consequently, the application for revision was found to lack merit and was disallowed. The file was ordered to be returned to the Mukuruweini Law Courts for hearing and determination before the same subordinate court.
Court disposition
application dismissed
Orders
- The application for revision is disallowed.
- The file is to be returned to Mukuruweini Law Courts for hearing and determination before the same subordinate court.
02
Material facts
Parties
Samuel Murage Maina
ApplicantRepublic
Respondent Counsel: ODPP03
Procedural history
Posture
Criminal Revision / Ruling on Revision
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
- 01
Whether there exists any illegality or irregularity in the proceedings before the trial court at Mukuruweini warranting revision by the High Court.
- 02
Whether the applicant has provided sufficient grounds for the transfer of his case from Mukuruweini Law Courts to Othaya Law Courts.
Party arguments
- Applicant
- The applicant sought transfer of his case from Mukuruweini Law Courts to Othaya Law Courts on the basis that the case had taken an inordinately long period to be heard and determined, while his other cases had already been concluded.
- Respondent
- The respondent did not file a formal response, but the court noted that the application was brought as a revision rather than a standard transfer application, and no illegality or irregularity was demonstrated in the lower court proceedings.
05
Court’s reasoning
Legal principles
- 01
Sections 362 and 364, Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 75)
A revision under Sections 362 and 364 of the Criminal Procedure Code is only available where there is an illegality, irregularity, or impropriety in the proceedings, finding, sentence, or order of the lower court.
06
Ratio, limits and disposition
Ratio decidendi
The court found that the applicant had not demonstrated any illegality, irregularity, or impropriety in the proceedings before the Mukuruweini Law Courts. The application was improperly brought as a revision rather than a standard transfer application. Upon perusal of the lower court record, the High Court found no basis for intervention under its revisionary jurisdiction. Consequently, the application for revision was found to lack merit and was disallowed. The file was ordered to be returned to the Mukuruweini Law Courts for hearing and determination before the same subordinate court.
Court disposition
application dismissed
- The application for revision is disallowed.
- The file is to be returned to Mukuruweini Law Courts for hearing and determination before the same subordinate court.
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
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT NYERI
CRIMINAL REVISION 140 OF 2020
SAMUEL MURAGE MAINA .....................................APPLICANT
VERSUS
REPUBLIC .............................................................................ODPP
RULING ON REVISION
1. The applicant was charged with the offence of defilement contrary to Section 8 (1) and (2) of the Sexual Offences Act in CR. CASE NO. 21 of 2018 before the Mukurweini Court.
2. By a letter dated 4th September, 2020 the applicant requested for a transfer of this case from Mukuruweini Law Courts to Othaya Law Courts for hearing and determination.
3. The reason he seeks for the transfer of his case is because the case has taken an inordinately long period of time to be heard and be determined, whereas his other cases had long been heard and determined.
4. This court notes that the application has been filed as a revision as opposed to a normal application for transfer of a case.
5. The applicable Law on Revision is found at Sections 362 and Section 364 of the Criminal Procedure Code. Under revision there must be an illegality or irregularity in the proceedings; or a finding, sentence or order that been made by the lower court, which is not proper or correct. The duty of this court would then be to proceed to remedy or reverse such orders, findings or sentences as mandated by Section 364.
6. This court, took it upon itself to a call for and to peruse the lower Court record upon such perusal found nothing there that demonstrates any illegality or irregularity in the proceedings before the trial court sitting at Mukuruweini.
7. The applicant has also not provided this court with any order or finding by the trial court that warrants remedy or reversal by this court.
8. For the foregoing reasons the application does not justify the orders sought for revision.
9. The application is found lacking in merit and is hereby disallowed.
10. The file to be returned back to Mukuruweini Law Courts for hearing and determination before the name subordinate court.
Orders Accordingly
Dated, Signed and Delivered at Nyeri this 22nd day of February, 2021.
HON. A. MSHILA
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.