[2009] KEHC 2192 (KLR)

[2009] KEHC 2192 (KLR)

The court found that the applicant's constitutional right to be arraigned in court within 14 days of arrest for a capital offence was violated, as he was detained for 56 days without explanation from the respondent. However, the court held that the appropriate remedy for such a violation is compensation as provided...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2009] KEHC 2192 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: Shem Hezron Ashiono; Respondent: Republic
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Kakamega
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Miscellaneous Criminal Application 23 of 2009
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Criminal Application / Ruling on Constitutional Rights Violation and Application to Terminate Criminal Proceedings
Outcome
Petitioner's rights were violated but criminal proceedings will continue; applicant may seek compensation.
Legal Topics
Right to Fair Trial, Pre Trial Detention, Remedies for Rights Violation, Criminal Procedure
Source Language
en
Constitutional Law Criminal Law Right to Fair Trial Pre Trial Detention Remedies for Rights Violation Criminal Procedure

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Shem Hezron Ashiono

Applicant

Republic

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Miscellaneous Criminal Application / Ruling on Constitutional Rights Violation and Application to Terminate Criminal Proceedings

  1. 1 Whether the applicant's constitutional rights under Sections 72(3) and 77(1) of the Constitution were violated due to delayed arraignment.
  2. 2 Whether the violation of the applicant's rights entitles him to termination of the criminal case and immediate release.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicant's constitutional right to be arraigned in court within 14 days of arrest for a capital offence was violated, as he was detained for 56 days without explanation from the respondent. However, the court held that the appropriate remedy for such a violation is compensation as provided under Section 72(6) of the Constitution, not the termination of the criminal proceedings or immediate release of the applicant. The court emphasized that the applicant is still entitled to a fair trial under Section 77 of the Constitution, and the delay in arraignment does not render the subsequent trial unfair. Therefore, the criminal case against the applicant shall proceed,...

Court Disposition

Petitioner's rights were violated but criminal proceedings will continue; applicant may seek compensation.

Orders

  • Declaration that the applicant's rights under Section 72(3) of the Constitution were violated.
  • The criminal case against the applicant shall proceed to hearing.