IN THE HIGH COURT AT NAIROBI MILIMANI LAW COURTS CONSTITUTIONAL AND HUMAN RIGHTS DIVISION PETITION NO. 571 OF 2013 BETWEEN DUNCAN WAMBUA KIMEU….…...…..…………..PETITIONER AND DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS…... RESPONDENT JUDGMENT 1. The matter before the court is an application by an accused in custody facing a robbery with violence contrary to Section 296(2) of the Penal Code in Makadara Criminal Case No. 1445 of 2014. 2. The applicant states that he was arrested on 23rd January 2011 and detained without trial up to 8th April 2011 for more than 3 ½ months. He states that this is a violation of his constitutional rights under Article 49(1)(f) of the Constitution. 3. I called for the subordinate court proceedings and from the charge sheet therein it states that the applicant was remanded at Machakos G K Prison facing a charge being Machakos Magistrate’s Court Case No 141 of 2011. 4. The applicant admitted that he had been arrested and charged with stealing in that case and was in lawful custody by the time he was taken to court on the second charge facing him. He admitted that even if he was released in the Makadara case, he would not be free by reason of the Machakos Case. 5. In my view, the applicant was less than candid and it is the duty of the applicant to disclose all material facts that bear on the subject matter. 6. This duty is not lessened merely because the issue is one of violation of Constitutional rights. 7. In the circumstances, the applicant’s application filed on 25th September 2012 is dismissed. The original court file shall be returned to Makadara Chief Magistrates Court and the applicant shall appear before the Court on 7th March 2014 for the mention of his case. Orders accordingly. DATED and DELIVERED at NAIROBI this 4th March 2014 D.S. MAJANJA JUDGE
Original judgment
Duncan Wambua Kimeu v Director of Public Prosecutions
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.