REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT MERU CRIMINAL REVIEW NO. 333 OF 2018 REPUBLIC.....................................................................APPLICANT VERSUS JOHNSON KOBIA M’IMPWI....................................APPELLANT RULING Partial Ruling 1. I have before me a notice of motion dated 28 th September 2018 which is expressed be brought under Article 25(c), 50 (2) (b-h) of the constitution, Section 211 of the CPC and all other enabling legal provisions and international conventions. The applicant seeks the court to revise/review and set aside orders issued on 27 th September 2018 rejecting the appellants application to be supplied with critical documents in the custody of the investigations officer to be able to prepare and challenge evidence adduced in the lower court and direct that they are released. 2. The application invokes the supervisory jurisdiction of the court. And at the heart of the application is an order made on 27 th September, 2018. However, I note that the order made on 27 th September 2018 is not on record. I also note that Mabeya J on 5 th November 2018 stated thus; “…. I further note that the order of 27th November 2018 is not before this court. Making any contrary orders may lead to embarrassment of the court as there is no averment on record why that record is not here. It may not be existing.” 3. I find myself in the same dilemma. Nonetheless, I direct the Applicant to file within 14 days a certified copy of the order made on 27 th November 2018. Upon filing of the said order, I will consider and determine the revision application herein. . Dated at Meru this 5th day of October 2019 ......................... F. GIKONYO JUDGE Dated and delivered at Meru in open court this 7th day of October 2019 ...................... A. MABEYA 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.