Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Original judgment

Patrick Nthiga Muvungu & 1 other v Republic & 1 other

REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT NAIROBI CRIMINAL DIVISION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.449 OF 2000 PATRICK NTHIGA MUVUNGU...........................APPLICANT Versus REPUBLIC.........................................................RESPONDENT PROCEEDINGS 26-9-2000: Ireri for Applicant Miss Shiundu, State Counsel Ireri: Refer to the affidavit in support. Pray for the stay of the proceedings in the court below. The hearing there is fixed for to-morrow. The objection to the copies. Annexture dated 13-7-2000. The applicant never worked at Nyayo house. The Magistrate did not consider the objection raised by the applicant. Section 68 & 69 of the Evidence Act not complied with. Miss Shiundu: Only served yesterday. I am not ready. I do not have the Magistrate’s ruling. I leave it to court. IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT NAIROBI CRIMINAL DIVISION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.449 OF 2000 PATRICT NTHIGA MUVUNGU.................................APPLICANT Versus REPUBLIC................................................................RESPONDENT

page 1 of 2

RULING I have considered the grounds canvassed by the Applicant to stay the proceedings in the Magistrate’s Criminal Case. It would be totally improper to interfer with the Magistrate’s ruling in a matter raised in the application since the trial is pending. There is nothing to prevent the applicant from challenging any error in the court below after the conviction if any, on appeal against it. The court sitting on such appeal would then decide the ground raised on it either way. The present application for the stay of the proceedings in the Resident Magistrate’s court is dismissed. V.V. PATEL JUDGE 26-9-2000

page 2 of 2

A note on accuracy. These pages are generated automatically from our AI-written case briefs and have not been checked by a lawyer. Case titles and citations come from Kenya Law; the counts, topics, propositions and “treatment” labels are derived from the briefs and can be incomplete or wrong. Use them as a research aid and always read the original judgment before relying on anything here. This is not legal advice.