Republic v Resident Magistrate’s Court, Voi & another Ex parte Japheth Mwakala & another [2016] eKLR

Key Facts

Issues

• Whether there can be concurrent criminal and civil jurisdiction on the said set of facts.
• Whether the civil court should determine the criminal allegations.

Holdings

• The court held that the criminal process against the Applicant is a lawful constitutional process conducted in accordance with all statutory and constitutional safeguards. The Applicant failed to demonstrate that the Respondents acted in excess of jurisdiction, without jurisdiction, or in contravention of natural justice. The court emphasized that judicial review does not concern itself with the merits of a case, which are reserved for the trial court.
• The court dismissed the application for orders of certiorari and prohibition, finding no merit in the Applicant's claim that concurrent civil and criminal jurisdiction is impermissible. Section 193A of the Criminal Procedure Code explicitly allows for concurrent proceedings, and the Applicant did not show any abuse of the criminal justice process.
• The court affirmed that the Director of Public Prosecutions and the Police acted within their constitutional and statutory duties. There was no evidence of ulterior motives or procedural impropriety in the institution of criminal charges. The Applicant was directed to defend the charges in the trial court rather than seeking judicial review.

Remedies

• The court dismissed the Applicant's Notice of Motion dated 12th September 2014, filed on 15th September 2015, with costs awarded to the Interested Party, Hassan Huri.
• The costs of the application were ordered to be paid by the Applicant to Hassan Huri, the Interested Party.

Legal Principles

• Criminal and civil proceedings can coexist when based on the same facts. Section 193A of the Criminal Procedure Code explicitly allows concurrent criminal proceedings even if a civil suit is pending.
• The court affirmed that the criminal prosecution process is a lawful constitutional mechanism, conducted with statutory safeguards. The Applicant's challenge to the process was dismissed as lacking merit.
• The court emphasized that certiorari and prohibition are discretionary remedies. To grant these orders, the court must find that the inferior tribunal acted in excess of jurisdiction, without jurisdiction, or in breach of natural justice. The Applicant failed to demonstrate such jurisdictional excess.

Precedent Name

• Commissioner of Lands vs. Hotel Kunste
• William vs. Spautz
• Republic vs. Anti-Counterfeit Agency & Others ex parte Surgipharm Limited
• Republic vs. Commissioner of Police & Another
• Wambua vs. Hon. Attorney General & 2 Others

Cited Statute

• Civil Procedure Rules, Order 53
• Constitution of Kenya 2010, Article 157(4)
• Law Reform Act, Cap 26
• Constitution of Kenya 2010, Article 157(10)
• Criminal Procedure Code, Cap 75
• Constitution of Kenya 2010, Article 50

Judge Name

Passage Text

• "...the purpose of criminal proceedings generally speaking, is to hear and determine finally whether the accused engaged in conduct which amounts to an offence and, on that account, is deserving of punishment."
• "Notwithstanding the provisions of any other written law, the fact that any matter in issue in any criminal proceedings is also directly or substantially in issue in any pending civil proceedings shall not be a ground for any stay, prohibition or delay of the criminal proceedings."
• "It is an order from the High Court directed at inferior tribunal or body which forbids the tribunal or body to continue proceedings that are in excess of its jurisdiction or in contravention of the laws of the land..."