Case Metadata |
|
| Case Number: | Miscellaneous Application 22 of 2020 |
|---|---|
| Parties: | Director of Public Prosecutions v Chrysanthus Barnabus Okemo, Samuel Kimunchu Gichuru, Attorney General, Chief Magistrates’ Court & Ethics And Anti-Corruption Commission |
| Date Delivered: | 06 Aug 2021 |
| Case Class: | Civil |
| Court: | Supreme Court of Kenya |
| Case Action: | Directions |
| Judge(s): | Martha Karambu Koome, Mohammed Khadhar Ibrahim, William Ouko, Smokin C Wanjala, Susanna Njoki Ndungu |
| Citation: | Director of Public Prosecutions v Chrysanthus Barnabus Okemo & 4 others [2021] eKLR |
| Case History: | (From the judgment of the Court of Appeal (E.M. Githinji, Okwengu & J. Mohammed, JJ.A.) delivered on 2nd day of March, 2018 in Civil Appeal No. 5 of 2016) |
| Court Division: | Anti-Corruption and Economic Crimes Division |
| County: | Nairobi |
| History Docket No: | Civil Appeal No. 5 of 2016) |
| History Judges: | Erastus Mwaniki Githinji, Hannah Magondi Okwengu, Jamila Mohammed |
| Case Summary: | Nature of directions that the Supreme Court could issue about the consideration of an application for a stay of execution.
Director of Public Prosecutions v Chrysanthus Barnabus Okemo & 4 others [2021] eKLR Misc. Application 22 of 2020 Supreme Court of Kenya MK Koome, CJ & P, MK Ibrahim, SC Wanjala, NS Ndungu & W Ouko, SCJJ August 6, 2021 Reported by Beryl Ikamari Civil Practice and Procedure – directions – issuance of directions by the Supreme Court – directions about the consideration of an application for a stay of execution – nature of directions that the Supreme Court could issue.
Brief facts The Court of Appeal declared that extradition proceedings instituted before the Magistrate's Court against the 1st and 2nd respondent by the applicant (the Director of Public Prosecutions) were without the Attorney General's authority and were therefore a nullity in law. The Court of Appeal held that it was the Attorney General that had power to commence and conduct such proceedings. The applicant filed a Petition of Appeal No 14 of 2020 with leave of court for purposes of challenging the Court of Appeal's decision. The applicant also filed a notice of motion application for a stay of execution of the Court of Appeal decision.
Issues What directions could the Supreme Court give with respect to the consideration of an application for a stay of execution?
Held
|
| Extract: |
Statutes East Africa Supreme Court Rules ,2020 (Act No 7 of 2011 Sub Leg ) rule 31 – (Interpreted) |
| History County: | Nairobi |
| Case Outcome: | Application taken out of the hearing list |
| Disclaimer: | The information contained in the above segment is not part of the judicial opinion delivered by the Court. The metadata has been prepared by Kenya Law as a guide in understanding the subject of the judicial opinion. Kenya Law makes no warranties as to the comprehensiveness or accuracy of the information |
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF KENYA
(Coram: Koome, CJ & P; Ibrahim, Wanjala, Njoki & Ouko, SCJJ.)
MISC. APPLICATION NO. 22 OF 2020
BETWEEN
DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS...............................................APPLICANT
AND
CHRYSANTHUS BARNABUS OKEMO........................................1ST RESPONDENT
SAMUEL KIMUNCHU GICHURU..............................................2ND RESPONDENT
ATTORNEY GENERAL..................................................................3RD RESPONDENT
CHIEF MAGISTRATES’ COURT..................................................4TH RESPONDENT
ETHICS AND ANTI-CORRUPTION COMMISSION................5TH RESPONDENT
______________________________________________________________________
(From the judgment of the Court of Appeal (E.M. Githinji, Okwengu & J. Mohammed, JJ.A.)
delivered on 2nd day of March, 2018 in Civil Appeal No. 5 of 2016)
_____________________________________________________________________
DIRECTIONS OF THE COURT
1. Intending to challenge the decision of the Court of Appeal made on 2nd March, 2018, the Director of Public Prosecutions, (the applicant) has, with the Court’s leave, lodged Petition of Appeal No. 14 of 2020. It was declared by that decision that extradition proceedings instituted before the magistrate’s court against Chrysanthus Barnabus Okemo and Samuel Kimunchu Gichuru (the 1st and 2nd respondents) by the applicant were without the authority of the 3rd Respondent (the Attorney General) and therefore a nullity; and that, in law, it is only the latter who is vested with the power to commence and conduct such proceedings.
2. Aggrieved by that determination and apprehensive that the decision may be executed by the Attorney General before the appeal is heard, the applicant has taken out this Notice of Motion, praying that, pending the hearing and determination of the appeal, this Court be pleased to issue an order to stay the execution of the aforesaid decision of the Court Appeal.
3. The application was listed for consideration on the basis of written submissions pursuant to Rule 31 of the Court’s Rules. However, having regard to the nature of the dispute in the pending appeal; bearing in mind that the main appeal has now been listed for hearing on 5th October, 2021, and in order to save on judicial resources, we direct that;
i. The Notice of Motion dated 12th August, 2020 be and is hereby taken out of the hearing list;
ii. The Notice of Motion be listed for further directions during the hearing of Petition No. 14 of 2020 on 5th October, 2021;
iii. We make no orders as to costs.
DATED and DELIVERED at NAIROBI this 6th day of August, 2021.
........................
M.K. KOOME
CHIEF JUSTICE
& PRESIDENT OF THE SUPREME COURT
...........................
M.K. IBRAHIM
JUSTICE OF THE SUPREME COURT
...........................
S.C. WANJALA
JUSTICE OF THE SUPREME COURT
..............................
NJOKI NDUNGU
JUSTICE OF THE SUPREME COURT
.................
W. OUKO
JUSTICE OF THE SUPREME COURT
I certify that this is a true copy of the original
REGISTRAR
SUPREME COURT OF KENYA
Please Wait. Searching ...