Oluoch & 7 others v Republic (Miscellaneous Criminal Application E143 of 2025) [2025] KEHC 10594 (KLR) (21 July 2025) (Ruling) Neutral citation: [2025] KEHC 10594 (KLR) REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT AT KIBERA MISCELLANEOUS CRIMINAL APPLICATION E143 OF 2025 DR KAVEDZA, J JULY 21, 2025 BETWEEN KENNEDY OLUOCH ........................................................................ 1ST APPLICANT NICHOLAS OTIENO ........................................................................ 2ND APPLICANT TOFIQ OWITI MOHAMED ............................................................ 3RD APPLICANT MICHAEL OMONDI OPIYO ........................................................... 4TH APPLICANT DAVID BILL CLINTON OTIENO .................................................. 5TH APPLICANT ROBERT OUKO ABALA .................................................................. 6TH APPLICANT SAMUEL OUMA ODHIAMBO ........................................................ 7TH APPLICANT ERICK OBUNGA OSUMBA ............................................................ 8TH APPLICANT AND REPUBLIC ............................................................................................ RESPONDENT RULING 1. I have considered the Notice of Motion dated 18th July 2025 seeking revision of the orders issued by the trial court. Upon review, I note that the matter originated from the Kahawa Chief Magistrates’ Court, which falls within the supervisory jurisdiction of the High Court at Kiambu. 2. Accordingly, the case lies outside this Court’s territorial jurisdiction. For the foregoing reason, the application is struck out. RULING DATED AND DELIVERED THIS 21ST DAY OF JULY 2025 D. KAVEDZA JUDGE https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2025/10594/eng@2025-07-21 1
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.