Case Metadata |
|
| Case Number: | Criminal Revison 98 of 2006 |
|---|---|
| Parties: | REPUBLIC v MIRIAM KENDI ALI & Another |
| Date Delivered: | 30 Nov 2006 |
| Case Class: | Criminal |
| Court: | High Court at Meru |
| Case Action: | Order |
| Judge(s): | Ruth Nekoye Sitati |
| Citation: | REPUBLIC v MIRIAM KENDI ALI & Another [ 2006] eKLR |
| Case History: | ORDER (Being revision arising from dismissal in Maua PM’s Court Criminal Case No. 1541 of 2006 – dated 13.11.2006) |
| Case Summary: | [Ruling] - CRIMINAL PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE - revision - revision arising from dismissal of the applicants case in the magistrate's court -where the dismissal was purportedly made on the grounds that there was insufficient evidence to require the accused to make a defence - where evidence had not been tendered and submissions made by both parties - effect of - circumstances under which the court shall dismiss a case and acquit - 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 ………………...………..........…………. PROSECUTOR
VERSUS
MIRIAM KENDI ALI …… ………………..........….. 1ST ACCUSED
FRIDAH KATHURE MAROKA ………………….. 2ND ACCUSED
ORDER
(Being revision arising from dismissal in Maua PM’s Court Criminal Case No. 1541 of 2006 – dated 13.11.2006)
This matter emanates from Maua Principal Magistrate’s Court Criminal Case No. 1541 of 2006 – Republic –Vs – Miriam Kendi Ali & another.
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 order under section 210 of the CPC cannot be made unless and until the whole evidence has been tendered and submissions made by both parties.
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 under the wrong section.
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.
Orders accordingly.
Dated at Meru this 30th day of November 2006.
RUTH N. SITATI
JUDGE
Please Wait. Searching ...