Judgment[2004] KEHC 1240
Case law
Search tips: "exact phrase" · -exclude · land | property · negligen* · citations like [2023] KEHC 123
Division and case type: CRIMINAL DIVISIONMiscellaneous Criminal Application
REPUBLIC OF KENYA Waweru v Republic High Court, at Nairobi August 14, 1985 Schofield J Criminal Appeal No 1723, 1724 & 1725 of 1984 (Appeal from the Resident’s Magistrate’ Court at Nairobi, J A Mango, Esq) Advocates Appellants absent, unrepresented, and not wishing to be present Miss W Ngugi, for respondent August 14, 1985, Schofield J delivered the following Judgment. Jackson Waweru (1st appellant), Francis Njoroge (2nd appellant) and Nelson Mwaniki (3rd appellant) were three of four accused
Division and case type: CriminalMiscellaneous Criminal Application
REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT NAIROBI MISCELLANEOUS CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.567 OF 2003 FELIX MACHARIA MAGAWA........................................APPLICANT VERSUS REPUBLIC..............................................................RESPONDENT RULING The applicant herein has applied to this Court for:- 1. Consolidation of Criminal Case No.1030 of 2003, Criminal Case No.1386 of 2003 and Criminal Case No.1387 of 2003, all preferred against him in Nairobi Chief Magistrate’s
Division and case type: CriminalMiscellaneous Criminal Application
accused persons for trial his Court had become functus officio and could not make any further order thereon. While hearing this constitutional issue, it was submitted before us that after the magistrate committed the accused persons for trial to the High Court counsel tried to draw the learned Chief Magistrate’s attention to the irregularities committed, namely non-compliance with provisions of sections 231 up to 253 of the Criminal Procedure Code, but to no avail due to the hostile attitude hel
Division and case type: Anti-CorruptionMiscellaneous Criminal Application
tends as a direction to the Court hearing the application for Order of Prohibition to grant the Order without using its own discretion whether it should do so. The Attorney-General did not need any authority, nor a reminder, that in the light of the opinions expressed by the Constitutional Court he could terminate the proceedings even when coupled with a wet hope that he would do so.