[Ruling] Criminal practice and procedure-murder-preliminary objection-application challenging the legality of the proceedings-where the defendant was held in custody in excess of the stipulated time in law-whether the prosecution discharged its duty to explain the inordinate delay-whether the application had merit-Penal Code sections 203, 204; Constitution section 72 (3) (6)

[Ruling] Election Petition – scrutiny and recount– application by petitioner for an order of scrutiny and recount of all the votes to ascertain the valid votes garnered by each of the parliamentary candidates – application based on the ground, inter alia, that the declaration of the parliamentary results for Starehe Constituency as contained in Forms 16As and Form 17A has been falsified through obvious unauthorized alterations made without any signed declarations by respective presiding officers vouching for the accuracy and truthfulness of the results – respondent opposing the application on the ground, inter alia, that the petitioner had not pleaded any ground  in his petition upon which the court would have jurisdiction to consider a request for scrutiny and that no evidence had been led so far to establish the for granting of the orders sought – second respondent further arguing that the application was premature as the evidence of the second and third respondents had not yet been heard – distinction between scrutiny and order – stage of the proceedings in which such an order may be made – purposes for which an order for scrutiny may be made – National Assembly and Presidential Act, section 23(2), 26(1), Presidential and Parliamentary Regulations, regulation35A(5)(c), 40(4), 42

Criminal practice and procedure-stealing-appellant convicted and sentenced to a fine of ten thousand shillings and in default six months imprisonment-appeal against both conviction and sentence-grounds of appeal, inter alia, that the trial magistrate erred in law in failing to appreciate the inordinate delay in arraigning the appellant before court for trial-where the delay was not explained by the prosecution-whether the delay breached his constitutional rights-whether the appeal had merit-Constitution section 72 (3); Penal Code section 275; Criminal Procedure Code section 219; Interpretation and General Provisions Act section 57 (a)

Criminal practice and procedure-assault causing actual bodily harm-appeal against conviction and sentence-where the appellant was not brought to court within twenty four hours of arrest-where there was no explanation for the inordinate delay-whether this violated the appellants rights-whether the appeal had merit-Constitution sections 72 (3), 77 (1); Penal Code section 251

Criminal practice and procedure-defilement-appellant charged with defilement and an alternative count of indecent act with a child-appellant convicted on the main count and sentenced to life imprisonment-no findings made on the alternative charge-appeal against conviction and sentence-whether the appeal had merit-Sexual Offences Act sections 8 (1) (2), 11 (1).

Constitutional law-rights of an accused person-appellant not brought to court within the prescribed period-where no explanation was given for the delay in charging the appellant during trial-whether the rights of the appellant had been violated-whether the trial was rendered a nullity-Constitution section 72(3).  

Criminal procedure-appeal-first appeal-appeal against the acquittal of the respondent-respondent had been acquitted on a charge of stealing and on alternative count of handling stolen goods-where the inordinate delay of arresting the respondent was not explained-whether the prosecution had proved their case beyond reasonable doubt-whether the evidence adduced could sustain a conviction-whether the appeal had merit-Penal Code sections 275, 322; Criminal Procedure Code sections 169, 211, and 215.

Criminal practice and procedure-appeal-appeal against sentence-appellant convicted on the count of rape and sentenced to life imprisonment-whether the sentence meted by the trial court was harsh and excessive-where the appellant was a first offender-whether the appellate court could interfere with the sentence imposed by the subordinate court-whether the appeal had merit-Penal Code section 95 (1), 140, 144 (1)

[Ruling] Family Law-setting aside-application to set aside the orders made-where the applicant had made two similar orders and had them dismissed-objection to the application on the grounds that it was res judicata-effect of-factors the court consider sin such applications-validity of order