Please Wait. Searching ...
|Case Number:||Criminal Revision 101 of 2006|
|Parties:||REPUBLIC v JACOB KOOME MAORE|
|Date Delivered:||30 Nov 2006|
|Court:||High Court at Meru|
|Judge(s):||Ruth Nekoye Sitati|
|Citation:||REPUBLIC v JACOB KOOME MAORE eKLR|
|Case History:||(Being Revision arising from dismissal in Maua PM’s Court Criminal Case No.2868 of 2006 dated 14.11.2006)|
[Ruling] - CRIMINAL PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE - review - review of the decision of the court dismissing a case on the grounds that the witness appeared confused - where the dismissal was purported to be carried out under section 210 of the Criminal Procedure Code - circumstances under which a dismissal under this section can be made - factors the court considers in such applications - validity of order - Criminal Procedure Code section 210
|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 HIGH COURT OF KENYA
Criminal Revision 101 of 2006
REPUBLIC ……………..………………………..……. PROSECUTOR
JACOB KOOME MAORE …....…………………………….. ACCUSED
(Being Revision arising from dismissal in Maua PM’s Court Criminal Case No.2868 of 2006 dated 14.11.2006)
This matter emanates from Maua Principal Magistrate’s Court Criminal Case No. 2868 of 2006 – Republic –Vs – Jacob Koome Maore.
The resident magistrate at Maua, Mr. D. Morara dismissed the case on 13.11.2006 on the ground that the witness, PW1, looked confused. The dismissal was purportedly made under section 210 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CPC) which provides as follows:-
“210. If at the close of the evidence in support of the charge, and after hearing such summing up, submission or argument as the prosecutor and the accused person or his advocate may wish to put forward, it appears to the court that a case is not made out against the accused person sufficiently to require him to make a defence, the court shall dismiss the case and shall forthwith acquit him.”
A dismissal under section 210 of the CPC cannot be made unless and until the whole evidence has been tendered and submissions made for by both parties, but not in the circumstances of this case.
In this case, the learned resident magistrate did not apply his mind judicially to the relevant section and consequently caused a miscarriage of justice by dismissing the prosecution’s case in purported application of section 210 of the C.P.C.
Accordingly, I order that this case be remitted back to the Principal Magistrate’s court at Maua for hearing de novo. The hearing should be conducted by a magistrate other than Mr. D. Morara.
Dated at Meru this 30th day of November 2006.
RUTH N. SITATI