[2012] KEHC 3274 (KLR)
The court found that the issues raised by the applicant regarding the affidavits of James Mungai Warui and John Kariuki were clear and understandable from the affidavits themselves, without the need for cross-examination. The court held that there was no merit in the application for cross-examination or for...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2012] KEHC 3274 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Hon. Washington Jakoyo Midiwo; Respondent: Director Public Prosecutor; Respondent: The Commissioner of Police; Respondent: The Director CID; Respondent: The Hon. Attorney General; Respondent: The Chief Magistrate Nairobi Law Courts
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Petition 9 of 2012
- Procedural Posture
- Constitutional Petition / Ruling on Interlocutory Application
- Outcome
- application dismissed
- Judges
- HK Chemitei
- Legal Topics
- Cross Examination of Affiants, Production of Documents, Interlocutory Applications
- 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
Hon. Washington Jakoyo Midiwo
Applicant
Director Public Prosecutor
Respondent
The Commissioner of Police
Respondent
The Director CID
Respondent
The Hon. Attorney General
Respondent
The Chief Magistrate Nairobi Law Courts
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Constitutional Petition / Ruling on Interlocutory Application
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the applicant is entitled to cross-examine the deponents of affidavits filed by the respondents.
- 2 Whether the court should order production of investigation files, witness statements, and documentary exhibits as requested by the applicant.
- 3 Whether the application for cross-examination and production of documents has merit.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the issues raised by the applicant regarding the affidavits of James Mungai Warui and John Kariuki were clear and understandable from the affidavits themselves, without the need for cross-examination. The court held that there was no merit in the application for cross-examination or for production of additional documents, as the material already on record was sufficient for determination of the matter. The application was therefore disallowed, and the parties were directed to proceed with the substantive petition based on the existing record to avoid further delay.
Court Disposition
application dismissed
Orders
- The application dated 5-7-2012 is disallowed.
- Parties to proceed with the substantive petition based on the record as it stands.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
29 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA
AT NAIROBI (MILIMANI LAW COURTS)
PETITION 9 OF 2012
HON. WASHINGTON JAKOYO MIDIWO..............................................................................................APPLICANT
VERSUS
DIRECTOR PUBLIC PROSECUTOR.........................................................................................1ST RESPONDENT
THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE..........................................................................................2ND RESPONDENT
THE DIRECTOR CID..................................................................................................................3RD RESPONDENT
THE HON. ATTORNEY GENERAL............................................................................................4TH RESPONDENT
THE CHIEF MAGISTRATE NAIROBI LAW COURTS............................................................5TH RESPONDENT
R U L I N G
On 6-7-2012 when the matter was to come up for hearing of the main petition the applicant file an application dated 5-7-2012 under certificate of urgency seeking the following orders:-
(a)This honourable court be pleased to determine the present application in priority to the petitioner’s application dated 24-4-2012.
(b)This honourable court be pleased to order one James Mungai Warui to appear before this court for purposes of being cross examined on the contents of the affidavit sworn by him on 3-5-2012 and lodged on 4-5-2012.
(c)That this honourable court be pleased to order one James Mungai Warui to produce the statement of the 25 witnesses, the documentary exhibits findings and recommendations made by the police as well as the documentary findings and conclusions of the 1st respondent be relied on.
(d)That this honourable court be pleased to order one Mr. John Kariuki SSP to appear before this for purposes of being cross examined on the contents of the affidavit sworn by him on 23-4-2012.
The application is supported by the applicant’s affidavit sworn on 5-7-2012.
According to the applicant of James Mungai Warui’s affidavit refers to an investigation file by the 2nd respondent and that in his support he has mentioned one John Kariuki SSP who alleged that a warrant of arrest be issued against the applicant who could not be traced.
When this application came up for hearing the respondent chose not to file any responses, but to rely on their substantive submissions already on record.
I have carefully read the entire application together with the affidavit of James Mungai Warui and John Kariuki. The affidavit of John Kariuki SSP is an annexture to the affidavit of Beatrice Akinyi Maganda.
After carefully assessing the application, I do not find any merit in it. The issues which the applicant seeks to cross examine the deponents contained in their affidavits are clear and can be well understood without the deponents being cross examined.
I do therefore disallow the same and order the parties to proceed with what is already on record and let this matter be determined without further undue delay.
Dated, signed and delivered at Kisumu this 10th day of July, 2012
H.K. CHEMITEI
JUDGE
………………………….for the applicant
…………………………for the respondents
HKC/va