Case Metadata |
|
| Case Number: | Criminal Appeal 47 of 1992 |
|---|---|
| Parties: | GEORGE KIBE MWAURA v REPUBLIC |
| Date Delivered: | 15 Nov 1992 |
| Case Class: | Criminal |
| Court: | Court of Appeal at Nairobi |
| Case Action: | Judgment |
| Judge(s): | Akilano Molade Akiwumi, Abdul Majid Cockar, Mathew Guy Muli |
| Citation: | GEORGE KIBE MWAURA v REPUBLIC [1992] eKLR |
| Advocates: | Miss Kamau, the State Counsel |
| Case History: | (Appeal from an order of the High Court of Kenya Nairobi (Mr Justice Mbogholi) dated 30th November, 1990, In H.C.CR.A. No 1281 of 1990) |
| Advocates: | Miss Kamau, the State Counsel |
| Case Summary: | Criminal Law-appeal-appeal from a conviction and sentence of the high court-high court having summarily rejected the appellant’s appeal-appellant claiming to have had an explanation as to how his fingerprints showed up on the stolen car-factors the court considers in such applications-validity of order |
| 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 COURT OF APPEAL OF KENYA
AT NAIROBI
CRIMINAL APPEAL 47 OF 1992
GEORGE KIBE MWAURA …………….……… APPELLANT
AND
REPUBLIC ……………………………..…….. RESPONDENT
(Appeal from an order of the High Court of Kenya
irobi (Mr Justice Mbogholi) dated 30th November, 1990,
In
H.C.CR.A. No 1281 of 1990)
****************
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
The appeal to the High Court was based on 6 grounds. Leaving aside the other grounds these is ground No 5 which refers to the defence raised by the appellant which was his explanation on how his finger prints could have come to be on the car that was stolen. Clearly the High Court ought not to have summarily rejected this appeal without considering the grounds of appeal. Section 352(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code allows a summary rejection only when the appeal is brought on the ground that the conviction is against the weight of evidence or that the sentence is excessive. Miss Kamau, the State Counsel, in our view has very rightly conceded the appeal so that the High Court may hear the appeal filed by the appellant on 23rd October, 1990.
The appellant has requested that the High Court be directed to hear the appeal on priority basis. We therefore, allow this appeal on the ground that it ought not to have been summarily rejected by the High Court and order that the appeal to the High Court be heard by a different judge. We also direct that the appeal be heard with expedition.
Dated and delivered at Nairobi this 15th day of November, 1992.
A.M. COCKAR
JUDGE OF APPEAL
M.G. MULI
JUDGE OF APPEAL
A.M. AKIWUMI
JUDGE OF APPEAL
Please Wait. Searching ...