SheriaNet for Android — search and read Kenyan case law from your phone, offline.
Join the beta →

OTIENO CLIFFORD RICHARD v REPUBLIC [2006] KEHC 822 (KLR)

[2006] KEHC 822 (KLR) High Court of Kenya
Read PDF
Court
High Court of Kenya
Case number
822
Citation
[2006] KEHC 822 (KLR)
Decided
17 November 2006
AI Summary Beta Machine-generated — may contain errors. Not legal advice.
TypePrivate ProsecutionPostureAppeal from a decision of the Chief Magistrate's CourtCoramAmin, CL, EDDO, EMUKULE, Emukule, Hancox, IBRAHIM, Juma, Kubasu, Kuloba, M., OJWANG Ag, Sachdeva
Holding

The court found that the entry of the nolle prosequi was premature and that the Plaintiff's rights to a fair hearing and access to justice were not violated.

Facts

The Plaintiff, Otieno Clifford Richard, initiated a private prosecution against H.E. Mrs. Lucy Muthoni Kibaki in Chief Magistrate's Misc. Criminal Application No. 5 of 2005. The Attorney General entered a nolle prosequi in the case on 16th May 2005.

Issues

  1. How should a Plaintiff seeking permission to conduct private prosecution approach the court
  2. Whether there were proceedings in which nolle prosequi could be entered
  3. Whether the Plaintiff's rights to a fair hearing and access to justice were violated
  4. Whether there is a constitutional right to institute and conduct private prosecution
  5. Whether the entry of the nolle prosequi breached the principle of separation of powers
  6. Whether the Attorney General abused his powers
  7. Whether the availability of an alternative remedy is a bar to a party alleging contravention of his constitutional rights

Reasoning

The court ruled that the nolle prosequi was entered prematurely as the accused was not before the court and the charge had not been accepted by the trial magistrate.

Outcome

Affirmed the Chief Magistrate's decision to enter the nolle prosequi.

Orders

  • The nolle prosequi dated 16th May 2005, signed by one Philip Murgor, be expunged from the record
  • The Chief Magistrate's Court be directed to proceed with the hearing and determination of the Application in accordance with the law

Authorities cited

Legislation (3)
  • Section 88 of the Constitution of Kenya
  • Section 77(9) of the Constitution of Kenya
  • Section 26 of the Constitution of Kenya
Cases cited (1)
  • KIMANI VS. KAHARA [1985 KLR 79]
Experimental AI summary generated by a language model, not a lawyer. It may contain errors or omissions and must not be relied on for legal decisions — the full judgment below is the authoritative source.
Full judgment 0.3 MB · PDF

Loading judgment…

Cite this case


        
        
      

Share this case