[2010] KEHC 1699 (KLR)
The court found no evidence of bias on the part of the trial magistrate. The record demonstrated that the magistrate had addressed and resolved the applicants' complaints regarding their treatment and personal property. The applicants' dissatisfaction was based on the manner in which evidence was being received and...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2010] KEHC 1699 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Shaban Shandala Abdalla; Applicant: Enos Simbili Jotham; Respondent: Republic
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Mombasa
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Criminal Miscellaneous Application 29 of 2010
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application to Transfer Criminal Trial
- Outcome
- application dismissed
- Legal Topics
- Transfer of Criminal Trial, Judicial Bias, Recusal of Magistrate
- 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
Shaban Shandala Abdalla
Applicant
Enos Simbili Jotham
Applicant
Republic
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Criminal Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application to Transfer Criminal Trial
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether there is sufficient evidence of bias by the trial magistrate to warrant transfer of the criminal trial to another court.
- 2 Whether the accused's dissatisfaction with the manner of receiving and recording evidence constitutes valid grounds for transfer of the case.
- 3 Whether the trial magistrate acted impartially in addressing the accused's complaints.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found no evidence of bias on the part of the trial magistrate. The record demonstrated that the magistrate had addressed and resolved the applicants' complaints regarding their treatment and personal property. The applicants' dissatisfaction was based on the manner in which evidence was being received and recorded, which does not constitute bias or grounds for transfer. The court emphasized that it is not for the accused to dictate court procedure and that the trial magistrate retains control over proceedings. The application was deemed an attempt to shop for a favourable court, which the High Court would not condone. Accordingly, the application to transfer the matter was...
Court Disposition
application dismissed
Orders
- The application to transfer the criminal trial to another court is dismissed.
- The matter shall proceed before Hon. Andayi to its logical conclusion.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
17 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT MOMBASA Criminal Miscellaneous Application 29 of 2010
1. SHABAN SHANDALA ABDALLA
2. ENOS SIMBILI JOTHAM ............... APPLICANTS
VERSUS
REPUBLIC ........................................................... RESPONDENT
RULING
This matter has been brought to the attention of this court pursuant to the provisions of S. 81(1) and S. 81(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code which empowers the High Court acting upon a report from the lower court, an interested party or on its own initiative to transfer a criminal trial from one subordinate court to another.In this particular instance the two accused persons namely SHABAN SHANDALA ABDALLA (Accused 1) and ENOS SIMBILI JOTHAM (Accused 2) had demanded that the trial magistrate HON. ANDAYI disqualify himself from proceeding further with their matter on the grounds that he was biased.
I have carefully perused the record of proceedings from the lower court.I am unable to find any evidence of this so-called bias.On the contrary I find that the accused persons did raise complaints when they were brought to court, regarding theft of their personal items and mistreatment in the hands of the prison authorities.These complaints were taken on board and were acted upon by the trial magistrate.The court even summoned the Officer Commanding Station Mariakani Police Station to appear in court and give a report on the complaints raised by the accused.Finally the court directed that the accused be allowed to channel their complaints through Kilifi Officer Commanding Police Division.Indeed the fact that the accused recognized and appreciated the efforts by the local magistrate to address their issues is evident on 8th March 2010 when at page 9 line 9 Accused 1 states
“I wish to inform court that all our problems that we had have been resolved”
The court responds
“Court – The officer-in-charge Kaloleni Prison is present and confirms that all the issues have been sorted out”
Therefore far from being biased against the accused the record shows that the trial magistrate bent over backwards to accommodate and resolve the complaints raised by the accused and the accused expressed satisfaction that the issues they raised had been satisfactorily resolved.
The problem leading to this call for the disqualification of the trial magistrate has arisen because the accused are not happy with the manner in which the evidence is being received and recorded by the court.It is not for an accused to dictate to any court how to proceed with its work.The trial magistrate remains at all times in charge of his court and it is he who determines how proceedings will be conducted.For the accused to decline to come to court on flimsy grounds amounts to contempt and indeed the trial magistrate may proceed with the trial in their absence if they persist in such unwarranted and juvenile behaviour.The accuseds are in effect attempting to ‘shop’ for a favourable court and as a High Court, I will not accept or condone this kind of behaviour.I find no evidence at all of bias on the part of the learned trial magistrate.On the whole I find that he has conducted the trial in an impartial and judicious manner.The accused’s complaints have absolutely no basis and I decline to transfer this matter to another court.This matter to proceed before Hon. Andayi to its logical conclusion.
Dated this 2nd day of July 2010.
M. ODERO
JUDGE