[2014] KEHC 4196 (KLR)
The High Court found that the applicant's complaints regarding lack of evidence, bond terms, and alleged victimization by the investigating officer were matters properly within the jurisdiction of the trial court and prosecutorial authorities. The trial court had already addressed the applicant's constitutional...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2014] KEHC 4196 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Suleiman Kathomi Alias Wakaru; Respondent: Republic
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Embu
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Miscellaneous Criminal Application 11 of 2014
- Procedural Posture
- Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application for Stay and Related Orders Pending Criminal Trial
- Outcome
- application dismissed with liberty to seek review of bond terms before trial court
- Legal Topics
- Stay of Proceedings, Bond Terms, Prosecutorial Discretion, Constitutional Rights in Criminal Process
- 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
Suleiman Kathomi Alias Wakaru
Applicant
Republic
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application for Stay and Related Orders Pending Criminal Trial
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the High Court should stay the proceedings in Criminal Case No. 750/2014 at the Chief Magistrate's Court, Embu.
- 2 Whether the police case file should be forwarded to the Director of Public Prosecution for review before prosecution continues.
- 3 Whether the State Law Office at Embu should be restrained from tampering with evidence before review by the DPP.
Ratio Decidendi
The High Court found that the applicant's complaints regarding lack of evidence, bond terms, and alleged victimization by the investigating officer were matters properly within the jurisdiction of the trial court and prosecutorial authorities. The trial court had already addressed the applicant's constitutional rights and bond terms, and the applicant was at liberty to seek further review of bond terms before the trial court. The High Court emphasized that it should not interfere with ongoing proceedings in a competent court unless there are exceptional circumstances, which were not demonstrated in this case. The application for stay and related orders was therefore disallowed, except...
Court Disposition
application dismissed with liberty to seek review of bond terms before trial court
Orders
- The application for stay of proceedings and related orders is disallowed.
- The applicant is at liberty to appear before the trial court on 9/6/2014 to apply for review of bond terms.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
39 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT EMBU
MISC. CRIMINAL APPLIC ATION NO. 11 OF 2014
(CR. 750/14 EMBU)
SULEIMAN KATHOMI Alias WAKARU...........................APPLICANT
VERSUS
REPUBLIC..................................................................RESPONDENT
R U L I N G
1. The Applicant filed this Notice of Motion dated 22/5/2014 for the following orders:-
(i) The Court to grant him stay orders to stop the magistrate's court from proceeding with Criminal Case No. 750/2014 at Chief Magistrate's court at Embu any further.
(ii) The Court makes an order that police case file No.411/2014 with all the prosecution evidence therein is forwarded to the office of the Director of Public Prosecution to certify whether the applicant is liable for prosecution.
(iii) This Court makes an order to the State Law Office at Embu not to tamper with already gatheredevidence before the same is perused by Hon.Keriako Tobiko for further directions.
(iv) This application is grounded upon the annexed affidavit of Suleiman Kathomi and other reasonable grounds to be adduced during hearing thereof.
2. It is supported by his affidavit sworn on 22/5/2014.
3. The DPP's office was served and the application was heard interpartes on 4/6/2014.
4. In his submissions the applicant stated that after reading through the written statements he did not find any evidence which linked him to the offence of robbery with violence.
5. He also complained of the investigating officer wanting to victimize him since he had arrested him three times.
6. Infact he says there is no complainant in the case against him.
7. Mr. Wanyonyi for the State opposed the application saying that the trial Court had taken plea and thereafter heard the applicant on the issue of violation of his constitutional rights.
8. Secondly the investigating officer was summoned and the Court heard on the matter.
9. Finally he submitted that if the applicant has any serious complaints he should channel them to the DPP's office or the in-charge of the Police Division.
10. I did call for the lower court record which I have had a chance of perusing.
11. His plea was well taken and he was given a bond of Shs.2 million with a surety on 14/5/2014. The investigating officer was on the next day called to explain why the applicant was not availed in Court within 24 hours as required by the law..
12. The trial court heard him and made a decision that the investigating officer had given a satisfactory explanation for the delay.
13. Its not clear how the bond was reduced on 21/5/2014 by another magistrate without any request for the review being made but that's what the record shows.
14. All the issues raised by the applicant about written statements and bond terms should be handled by the trial Court.
In as much as the applicant is charged with robbery with violence, the Court while considering the bond terms to give should take cognizance of all the facts of the case and give reasonable bond terms as exorbitant bond terms amount to indirectly denying an accused person bond.
15. The matter complained of by the Applicant is before acompetent Court and this Court has no reason whatsoever to make it interfere with the said matter.
16. The applicant is at liberty to raise any other complaints he has with the OCPD under whom the investigating officer serves or the DPP's office Embu. I am sure those two offices will assist him.
17. It is only the trial court (not this one) which afterhearing all the witnesses will determine whether the applicant is linked to the charges or not. The applicant should allow the trial Court to carry out its mandate.
18. The applicant will therefore appear before the trial court on 9/6/2014 to make an application for review of his bond terms which I find to be unreasonably high.
19. Save for what I have stated at paragraph 18, I find the application to be lacking in merit and I disallow it.
DELIVERED, DATED AND SIGNED AT EMBU THIS 6TH DAY OF JUNE 2014.
H.I. ONG’UDI
JUDGE
In the presence of:-
Ms. Mbae for State
Applicant
Njue/Kirong CC