REPUBLIC OF KENYA High Court at Nakuru Revision Case 5 of 2013 DANIEL MUCHIRI NGIGE..............................................APPLICANT VERSUS REPUBLIC..................................................................RESPONDENT ORDER ON REVISION Revision under Section 362 and 364 of the Criminal Procedure Code. This file Criminal Case 2131/12, Rep. v Daniel Muchiri Ngige, has been placed before me by the trial magistrate who states that she erred by discharging the accused under Section 202 of the Criminal Procedure Code for non attendance by one PC Hassan who is the Investigation Officer in the matter. When the trial magistrate made the order, four witnesses had already testified and the prosecutor was in court and it was therefore an error for the court to discharge the accused under Section 202 of the Criminal Procedure Code for non attendance by PC Hassan. Section 202 of the Criminal Procedure Code allows the court to acquit an accused person for non attendance by the complainant. In this case, the complainant had testified and the prosecutor was in court on behalf of the State. If the prosecution was not able to call any other witness, the court should have asked the prosecutor to close his case and the court would then have ruled on whether or not the accused had a case to answer based on the evidence already on record. It is confirmed that no warrant has been issued and the accused is still held in remand. In exercise of my revisionary powers under Section 364 of the Criminal Procedure Code, I hereby set aside the magistrate’s order discharging the accused pursuant to Section 202 of the Criminal Procedure Code. I direct that the trial do proceed, as the trial court will direct. It is so ordered. DATED this 25th day of April, 2013. R.P.V. WENDOH JUDGE
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.