Babugun Kokeloh v Republic
The bottom line
#The High Court refused to stop a criminal land case, confirming that civil and criminal proceedings can run at the same time in Kenya.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Scope of the High Court's revisionary jurisdiction under Sections 362, 364 and 365 CPC and Article 165(6) and (7) of the Constitution.
Revision is supervisory and corrective, confined to correctness, legality, propriety and regularity; it does not extend to merit decisions or re-evaluation of evidence.
The court traced the jurisdiction to Article 165(6) and (7) and Section 362 CPC, distinguished revision from appeal, and relied on its own prior decision in Ogutu and in Muriuki to hold that a revision court cannot delve into the merits or substitute its own view where the trial court exercised judicial discretion after hearing both parties.
Whether the trial court erred in declining to stay criminal proceedings pending the Environment and Land Court suit.
No error disclosed: Section 193A CPC permits concurrent criminal and civil proceedings, and the trial court found the subject parcels in the criminal and ELC matters were different, distinguishing Araka.
The court reproduced Section 193A CPC and held that parallel civil proceedings do not deprive the criminal court of jurisdiction. The trial court had examined the green cards, ground report and ELC judgments and found parcel 1457 arose from parcel 422, not parcel 22, and was not shown to be the subject of the pending ELC suit. Whether that conclusion was right or wrong is a matter for appeal, not revision.
Alleged bias and pre-determination by the trial Magistrate.
Rejected; no evidence of bias was placed before the Court, and adverse interlocutory findings do not without more demonstrate pre-determination.
The Applicant alleged the Magistrate predetermined the outcome and formed an adverse opinion before trial. The court found no evidence that the Magistrate acted otherwise than judicially, noting she considered the parties' arguments and the material before her, and that dissatisfaction with the outcome is not a basis for revision.
Legal principles established
#- Revisionary jurisdiction under Section 362 CPC is supervisory and corrective, not appellate; it does not permit re-evaluation of evidence or substitution of the High Court's view for a discretionary merit decision of a subordinate court.
- Under Section 193A CPC, the pendency of parallel civil proceedings on substantially the same issue is not a ground for staying criminal proceedings.
- A court may only interfere in revision where the subordinate court acted illegally, irregularly, improperly or outside its jurisdiction, not merely because the revision court would have reached a different conclusion.
- Adverse interlocutory findings do not, without evidence, demonstrate bias or pre-determination by a trial magistrate.
Court orders
#- 1.The notice of motion dated 6th July, 2026 is dismissed for lack of merit.
- 2.The interim orders of stay issued by the High Court pending determination of the application are discharged.
- 3.The trial court shall proceed with the hearing of Tamu SPM Criminal Case No. E267 of 2025, Republic v Babugun Kokeloh, in accordance with the law.
- 4.The file is closed.
- On appeal from
- Principal Magistrate's Court, Tamu (Tamu SPM Criminal Case No. E267 of 2025, Republic v Babugun Kokeloh)
- Tamu MCCR/E267/2025
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Article 165(6) and (7) of the Constitution and Sections 362, 364 and 365 of the Criminal Procedure Code (revisionary/supervisory jurisdiction)
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Babugun Kokeloh v Republic", Case Analysis (2026). Not stated in the judgment (criminal revision concerning Tamu SPM Criminal Case No. E267 of 2025). Source:
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.