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

Zephania Ogoro Obuya v Director of Public Prosecutions & another [2017] KEHC 2109 (KLR)

[2017] KEHC 2109 (KLR) High Court of Kenya
Read PDF
Court
High Court of Kenya
Case number
2109
Citation
[2017] KEHC 2109 (KLR)
AI Summary Beta Machine-generated — may contain errors. Not legal advice.
TypeJudicial ReviewPostureApplication for Certiorari and ProhibitionCoramOdunga
Holding

The court found that the inquest was conducted in compliance with the provisions of Section 386(1)(b) of the Criminal Procedure Code. The court also found that the applicant did not make out a case to warrant the issuance of orders of judicial review to stop his intended prosecution.

Facts

The applicant, Zephania Ogoro Obuya, sought orders of certiorari to remove and quash the decision of the Resident Magistrate court recommending the charging of the driver of motor vehicle KAG 946T for causing death by dangerous driving. The applicant also sought orders of prohibition to prevent the arrest of the driver.

Issues

  1. Whether the inquest conducted by the trial court was conducted in compliance with Section 386(1)(b) of the Criminal Procedure Code.
  2. Whether the applicant has made out a case to warrant the issuance of orders of judicial review to stop his intended prosecution.
  3. Whether the implementation of the trial court's decision will occasion the applicant double jeopardy.

Reasoning

The court noted that the trial court did not carry out an inquest out of the blues but that the inquest was conducted following a proper report filed by the police after their investigations of the accident that led to the death of the deceased.

Outcome

The application was dismissed.

Authorities cited

Legislation (2)
  • Criminal Procedure Code
  • Constitution of Kenya 2010
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 0.2 MB · PDF

Loading judgment…

Cite this case


        
        
      

Share this case