[2012] KEHC 2314 (KLR)
The court held that the constitutional protection against double jeopardy under Article 50(2)(o) is only available where the accused has previously been acquitted or convicted of the same offence. In this case, the proceedings in the Industrial Court were terminated by withdrawal, not by acquittal or conviction....
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2012] KEHC 2314 (KLR)
- Parties
- Petitioner: Stanley Maina Mutuota; Petitioner: Julius Muriuki; Petitioner: Justus Wangombe; Petitioner: Michael Mwatha; Petitioner: Kiema Mwandia; Petitioner: David Muhoro; Petitioner: Charles Mwathi; Petitioner: Martin Omungala; Petitioner: Benjamin Matemo; Petitioner: Stephen Mburu; Petitioner: Kiguru Mwaura; Petitioner: Charles Gichuki; Respondent: The Labour Commissioner; Respondent: The Chief Magistrate’s Court Nairobi; Respondent: The Hon. Attorney General; Respondent: The Director of Public Prosecution
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Petition 313 of 2012
- Procedural Posture
- Constitutional Petition / Judgment
- Outcome
- petition dismissed
- Judges
- DAS Majanja
- Legal Topics
- Double Jeopardy, Fair Trial Rights, Criminal Procedure, Withdrawal of Charges
- 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
Stanley Maina Mutuota
Petitioner
Julius Muriuki
Petitioner
Justus Wangombe
Petitioner
Michael Mwatha
Petitioner
Kiema Mwandia
Petitioner
David Muhoro
Petitioner
Charles Mwathi
Petitioner
Martin Omungala
Petitioner
Benjamin Matemo
Petitioner
Stephen Mburu
Petitioner
Kiguru Mwaura
Petitioner
Charles Gichuki
Petitioner
The Labour Commissioner
Respondent
The Chief Magistrate’s Court Nairobi
Respondent
The Hon. Attorney General
Respondent
The Director of Public Prosecution
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Constitutional Petition / Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the petitioners' prosecution in Nairobi Criminal Case No. 972 of 2012 constitutes double jeopardy under Article 50(2)(o) of the Constitution.
- 2 Whether the withdrawal of charges in the Industrial Court amounts to an acquittal or conviction for purposes of double jeopardy protection.
- 3 Whether the petitioners' rights to fair trial, including access to charge sheets and witness statements, have been violated.
Ratio Decidendi
The court held that the constitutional protection against double jeopardy under Article 50(2)(o) is only available where the accused has previously been acquitted or convicted of the same offence. In this case, the proceedings in the Industrial Court were terminated by withdrawal, not by acquittal or conviction. Therefore, the petitioners cannot invoke the double jeopardy clause to bar their prosecution in Nairobi Criminal Case No. 972 of 2012. The court also noted that the petitioners are entitled to be supplied with the charge sheet and witness statements as part of their fair trial rights, and the subordinate courts are expected to uphold these rights. As a result, the petition was...
Court Disposition
petition dismissed
Orders
- The petition is dismissed.
- The conservatory orders in force are discharged.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
36 paragraphs
STANLEY MAINA MUTUOTA
JULIUS MURIUKI
JUSTUS WANGOMBE
MICHAEL MWATHA
KIEMA MWANDIA
DAVID MUHORO
CHARLES MWATHI
MARTIN OMUNGALA
BENJAMIN MATEMO
STEPHEN MBURU
KIGURU MWAURA
CHARLES GICHUKI ……….…………………….................... PETITIONERS
AND
THE LABOUR COMMISSIONER …................................. 1ST RESPONDENT
THE CHIEF MAGISTRATE’S COURT NAIROBI ............ 2ND RESPONDENT
THE HON. ATTORNEY GENERAL ................................ 3RD RESPONDENT
THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTION .............. 4TH RESPONDENT
JUDGMENT
1. The subject of this dispute is whether the petitioners can be charged for certain offences at the Nairobi Chief Magistrate Court after similar charges against them were withdrawn at the Industrial Court. The facts leading to the petition filed in court on 24th July 2012 are not in dispute.
2. The petitioners, directors of Akili Moja Company Limited, were charged with offences of failing to comply with the provisions of the Employment Act, 2009 before the Industrial Court in Industrial Court Cause No. L98 of 2011. They pleaded not guilty and were released on cash bail. On 28th June 2012, the prosecutor applied to withdraw the charges and upon there being no objection by counsel for the accused, the court marked the charges as withdrawn and the accused were discharged and the cash bail refunded.
3. The petitioners’ were thereafter charged for the same offences in Nairobi Criminal Case No. 972 of 2012. It is the second charge that the petitioners claim infringes their rights in that they will suffer double jeopardy and inconvenience if they are taken through the motions of another criminal case hearing.
4. The petitioner’s therefore seek the following reliefs in their petition dated 24th July 2012;
(a)A declaration that the criminal proceedings against the petitioners in Nairobi Criminal Case No. 972 of 2012 is a nullity, illegal and a gross violation of the petitioners fundamental rights and freedoms and thus a violation of the constitution.
(b)An order of permanent injunction restraining the respondents jointly and severally from continuing and or proceeding with Nairobi Criminal Case No 972 of 2012.
(c)General damages
(d)Such other orders as this Honourable Court may deem fit to grant
(e)Costs of this suit.
5. The right against double jeopardy is clearly articulated at Article 50(2)(o) which provides that, “Every accused person has the right to a fair trial which includes the right – (o) not to be tried for an offence in respect of an act of omission for which the accused person has previously been acquitted or convicted.” [Emphasis mine.]
6. For the petitioners to obtain the benefit of this provision, they must demonstrate that the proceedings in the Industrial Court led to either a conviction or acquittal. Both parties agree that the proceedings in that court were terminated by withdrawal. It therefore follows that Article 50(2) (o)is of no avail to the petitioner.
7. As regards the complaint that the accused were not supplied with the charge sheet and statements, I would point out that the petitioners are entitled to the charge sheet and statements by virtue of Article 50(2)(b) and (j) and no doubt the subordinate courts will be alive to these provisions.
8. In the circumstances, the petition lacks merit and it is dismissed. The conservatory orders in force are discharged. There shall be no order as to costs.
DATEDand DELIVERED at NAIROBI this 21st day of September 2012.
D.S. MAJANJA
JUDGE
Mr Kirimi instructed by Kinyanjui, kirimi and Company Advocates for the petitioners.
Mr Njeru, State Counsel, instructed by the Directorate of Public Prosecutions.