John Mwangi Muhia & 2 others v Director of Public Prosecutions & 5 others [2019] KECA 839 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Court of Appeal confirmed that judges cannot be 'admonished' for their rulings — the proper remedy is to appeal, with solid proof.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Questions the Court framed
#The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.
- 1.Whether the trial judge erred in circumventing, distorting or mischievously evading the appellants' oral submissions and the grounds in the supporting affidavit in her ruling of 17th October 2013
- 2.Whether the trial judge deliberately blocked the appellants' advocates from proceeding with the hearing of the Petition on merit
- 3.Whether the Court should admonish Lady Justice Mumbi Ngugi, the Director of Public Prosecutions and the Hon. Attorney General for denying the appellants access to justice
Key legal issues
#Whether the trial judge deliberately blocked the appellants' counsel and circumvented or distorted their oral submissions
The ground fails; there is no evidence on record, and no affidavit, proving the judge deliberately blocked counsel or distorted the record. The ground borders on scandalizing the court.
The court treated accusations of judicial misconduct as serious allegations attracting a burden of proof above the balance of probabilities. It examined the record, found nothing supporting the claim of deliberate blocking or distortion of submissions, and held that unsubstantiated attacks on a judge's integrity amount to scandalizing the court.
Whether the Court can admonish a judge or litigants for conduct in proceedings
No. Admonishment is not a recognized remedy; the remedy against a judicial decision is appeal, and the alleged denial of access to justice was not an issue for determination in this appeal.
The court held that a judge cannot be admonished for orders made in the exercise of judicial functions; the proper recourse is appeal subject to limited exceptions. Nor will a court admonish a litigant. Since no competent court of original jurisdiction had determined the alleged rights violation, that question could not be entertained on appeal.
Incorporation of the judgment in Civil Appeal No. 339 of 2013
The judgment in Civil Appeal No. 339 of 2013 is declared to be the judgment of the Court in this appeal, all parties having adopted the same submissions.
The facts and substantive ruling giving rise to both appeals were identical and the parties were the same. At the hearing the parties adopted the written and oral submissions made in Civil Appeal No. 339 of 2013, so the Court adopted that judgment in its entirety while separately addressing the grounds and prayers unique to this appeal.
Legal principles established
#- An appellate court cannot admonish a judge for a ruling, judgment or order made in the exercise of judicial functions; the remedy of an aggrieved party is appeal.
- Admonishment is not a substantive relief or remedy known to law, and a court of law does not as a general rule admonish a litigant or party to proceedings.
- Allegations that a judge deliberately blocked counsel, denied access to justice, or distorted the court record are serious and must be proved to a standard above a balance of probabilities.
Court orders
#- 1.The judgment of the Court in Civil Appeal No. 339 of 2013 is declared to be the judgment of the Court in this appeal
- 2.The appeal is dismissed with costs to the 2nd, 3rd and 5th respondents
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
- On appeal from
- High Court of Kenya at Nairobi
- H.C. Petition No. 249 of 2012
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Appellate jurisdiction of the Court of Appeal over the High Court (not expressly invoked in the judgment)
- Consolidated with
- Civil Appeal No. 339 of 2013 (substantively incorporated by adoption of its judgment)
Relief refused
#Admonishment of Lady Justice Mumbi Ngugi, the DPP and the Attorney General
A court cannot admonish a judge for a ruling made in exercise of judicial functions; admonishment is not a known remedy, and the alleged rights violation was not an issue in this appeal
Setting aside the ruling of 17th October 2013 and allowing the Petition dated 8th June 2012, with general and exemplary damages
The appeal lacks merit; the allegations against the trial judge were unproven and border on scandalizing the court
Costs
Appeal dismissed with costs to the 2nd, 3rd and 5th respondents.
Quotable passages
#Verbatim from the judgment, each located to the page it appears on in the official PDF — so these can be cited and checked directly.
The allegations levelled against the trial judge of deliberately blocking the appellants from prosecuting their petition on merit or accessing justice and circumventing or distorting the court record are serious allegations that require proof above balance of probabilities.
Subject to very limited exceptions, a party aggrieved by any order or ruling of a court has a right of appeal.
This appeal has no merit and is hereby dismissed with costs to the 2 nd, 3rd and 5th respondents.
Issues in the judgment
#The memorandum of appeal attributes the trial court's ruling and the Notice to Show Cause to inconsistent dates (ruling dated 17th October 2012 in some grounds but 17th October 2013 in the prayer; Notice to Show Cause dated 20th November 2012 versus the notice dated 13th November 2012 referenced in the trial court's ruling). The appeal is marked '(sic)' in places.
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "John Mwangi Muhia & 2 others v Director of Public Prosecutions & 5 others [2019] KECA 839 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2019). Civil Appeal No. 337 of 2013. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/2019/839/eng@2019-03-22
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.