Skip to content
JudgmentPETER NDIRITU WACHIRA VS State Law Office3 min read

PETER NDIRITU WACHIRA VS State Law Office

High Court at Nyahururu High Court · · Lilian Mutende


  1. The firm of Rayden Mwangi and Associates acting for Peter Ndiritu Wachira through a letter dated 28th December, 2024 seeks revision in Nyahururu Magistrate’s Court Criminal Case No. E277 of 2024 Republic v Peter Ndiritu Wachira (Appellant) and Another.
  2. It is urged that orders issued in Nanyuki Judicial Review Miscellaneous Application No. E001 of 2024 staying any further proceedings in Nyahururu E277 of 2024 pending hearing and determination of the Judicial Review Proceedings were extracted and served upon the ODPP and the court on 28th February, 2024 and 29th February, 2024, respectively.  That when the case was transferred to Nyahururu the orders were in force.
  3. That despite the orders, warrants of arrest were issued against the Applicant, implying that the Magistrate opted to proceed with the matter in defiance of the High Court order.  The warrant of arrest was however not effected by the OCS, Nakuru Central Police Station upon perusing the court order.
  4. That proceedings before the Honourable Magistrate during pendency of the stay order were a nullity and irregular, illegal, improper and in contempt of the court orders and also disregard of the Rule of Law and presumed to be review of the High Court order which defeats the doctrine of stare decisis.
  5. It is hence the prayer of the Applicant that the order by the trial court be set aside and the warrant of arrest be lifted.
  6. This court has been called upon to exercise its supervisory jurisdiction over the Lower Court which is provided in the constitution and statute.
  7. Article 165(6) (7) of the Constitution provides that;

(6) The High Court has supervisory jurisdiction over the subordinate courts and over any person, body or authority exercising a judicial or quasi-judicial function, but not over a superior court.

(7) For the purposes of clause (6), the High Court may call for the record of any proceedings before any subordinate court or person, body or authority referred to in clause (6) and may make any order or give any direction it considers appropriate to ensure the fair administration of justice.

  1. Section 362 of the Criminal Procedure Code proves that;

The High Court may call for and examine the record of any criminal proceedings before any subordinate court for the purpose of satisfying itself as to the correctness, legality or propriety of any finding, sentence or order recorded or passed, and as to the regularity of any proceedings of any such subordinate court.

  1. The supervisory jurisdiction of the High Court enables it to maintain the integrity of the legal system and ensures proceedings and/or orders made by the Lower Court are legal, proper, procedural and rational.
  2. The doctrine of stare decisis in law in a foundational principle in law where courts are obligated to follow precedents established by Superior Courts in previous legal cases with similar facts or issues.  This promotes consistency hence promoting stability in law.
  3. In the instant issue the Superior Court while considering the Judicial Review matter filed by the Applicant herein did grant a stay order on temporary basis pending hearing of the application to grant leave or not to institute Judicial Review.  It would not have been a question of defeating stare decisis since a decision had not been made by the court that bound the Lower Court.  What would have been considered would be whether there was existence of some disobedience or contempt of the court order.
  4. A perusal of the Lower Court record reveals that a charge sheet drawn where the Applicant and Another were indicted for several offences was instituted by being filed in court.  The Applicant in particular had been granted a cash bail of Kshs.10,000/- but he did not turn up for trial.  His co-accused who was present pleaded to the charges.  On 22nd February 2024, it was explained by counsel representing the Applicant that he was unwell.  On 29th February 2024, the court was notified of existence of an order in Judicial Review matter.  The court continued mentioning the matter for purposes of confirming the status of the Judicial Review matter.
  5. Subsequently, both accused and counsel stopped availing themselves in court hence a warrant of arrest was issued on 14th November 2024, when both accused appeared in court, the warrant of arrest was lifted.  Thereafter the matter was mentioned until this court called for the file with a view examining the record.
  6. Notably, the case did not proceed to hearing but would be mentioned for purposes of tracking down the matter as required by the Case Tracking System.  This was neither irregular nor improper.
  7. Therefore, I find the application for revision without merit.  Accordingly, it is dismissed. 


    PETER NDIRITU WACHIRA VS State Law Office PETER NDIRITU WACHIRA VS State Law Office