Yusuf Rashid v Republic

Applicant. PW3, a forensic expert, admitted she could not identify any individual in the footage or determine who was depicted moving therein. The Investigating Officer, PW4, admitted that although three male persons appeared in the footage, he could not identify the Applicant, could not establish ownership of the metal plates, and had seen no documentation proving ownership. 4. He further admitted that the Applicant was arrested on 21st June 2024 but presented in court on 25th June 2024 outside the constitutional period, that he did not record the Applicant’s statement, did not establish whether the CCTV belonged to Francis or PW2, and that no security guards recorded statements to corroborate the complaint. PW5, the arresting officer, similarly admitted he could not identify the Applicant in the footage, did not verify ownership of the alleged exhibits, and arrested the Applicant largely on the basis of identification by PW1. 5. The Applicant therefore contends that the trial court ought to have given reasons demonstrating how a prima facie case had been established. He expresses apprehension that the absence of reasons suggests the court had already formed a view adverse to him, thereby undermining the fairness of the trial. He depones, on advice of counsel, that the legal threshold for placing an accused person on his defence was not met and that this Court is empowered under section 364(1)(b) of the Criminal Procedure Code to revise or set aside an order of a subordinate court where illegality, impropriety, or a miscarriage of justice is apparent. He urged the court to grant the orders sought. 6. The application was canvassed by way of written submissions which have been duly considered and there is no need to rehash them. The High Court’s power of revision is set out in Article 165 (6) and (7) which provides: - 7. (6) The High Court has supervisory jurisdiction over the subordinate courts and over any person, body or authority exercising a judicial or quasi-judicial function, but over a superior court. (7) For the purposes of clause (6), the High Court may call for the record of any proceedings before any subordinate court or person, body or authority referred to in clause (6), and may make any order or give any direction it considers appropriate to ensure the fair administration of justice. Section 362 of the Criminal Procedure Code provides: The High Court may call and examine the record of any criminal proceedings before any subordinate court for the purpose of satisfying itself as to the correctness, legality or propriety of any finding, sentence or order recorded or passed and as to the regularity of any proceedings of any such subordinate court. 8. The revisionary jurisdiction of the High Court was discussed by Odunga J in a persuasive decision of Joseph Nduvi Mbuvi vs Republic [2019] eKLR: “ In my considered view, the object of the revisional jurisdiction of the High Court is to enable the high Court in appropriate cases, whether during the pendency of the proceedings in the subordinate court or at the conclusion of the proceedings to correct manifest irregularities or illegalities and give appropriate directions on the manner in which the trial, if still ongoing, should be proceeded with. In other words, the High Court’s revisionary jurisdiction includes ensuring that where the proceeding in the lower court has been legally derailed, necessary directions are given to bring the same back on track so that the trial proceeds towards its intended destination without hitches. Not only is the jurisdiction exercisable where the subordinate court has made a finding, sentence or order but goes on https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/2308/eng@2026-02-24 2

page 2 of 3

to state that it is also exercisable to determine the regularity of any proceedings of any such subordinate court as well.” 9. The foregoing provisions vest this Court with revisionary jurisdiction over orders of subordinate courts. This Court is therefore properly seized of the authority to entertain the present application. In proceedings of this nature, the burden rests upon the Applicant to demonstrate that the trial court acted illegally, improperly, irregularly, or upon a misapprehension of the law or facts in arriving at the impugned decision. 10. In the present matter, at the close of the Prosecution’s case the learned trial Magistrate found that the Prosecution had established a case to answer and accordingly placed the Applicant on his defence. That finding did not determine guilt but merely signified that the evidence on record disclosed matters requiring an answer from the defence. By so doing, the trial court afiorded the Applicant an opportunity to be heard, which forms an integral component of the right to a fair trial guaranteed under Article 50 of the Constitution. 11. A criminal trial is a continuous judicial process which must run its course to its lawful conclusion. An accused person cannot properly disengage from the process at an intermediate stage merely because the court has found a case to answer. The obligation placed upon the Applicant is to present his defence so that the trial court may evaluate the totality of the evidence before rendering its final determination. In placing the Applicant on his defence, the learned magistrate acted within the confines of the law and followed the prescribed procedure, thereby safeguarding rather than undermining the fairness of the trial. 12. At the stage of determining whether a case to answer has been made out, the trial court is not required to render a detailed evaluation of the evidence or give elaborate reasons, as such analysis may risk prejudging issues reserved for the final judgment after the defence is heard. The Applicant therefore has no legal entitlement to insist upon extensive reasoning at that interlocutory stage. His proper recourse lies in tendering his defence and, if necessary, challenging the final decision through the appellate process. 13. In the premises, the Applicant has not demonstrated any illegality, impropriety, irregularity, or miscarriage of justice that would justify this Court’s intervention in exercise of its revisionary jurisdiction. The application dated 8th January 2026 is lacking in merit and is hereby dismissed. Orders accordingly. RULING DATED AND DELIVERED VIRTUALLY THIS 24TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026. D. KAVEDZA JUDGE In the presence of: Mr. Ngaira for the Applicant. Mr. Karanja for the Respondent. Karimi - Court Assistant. https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/2308/eng@2026-02-24 3

page 3 of 3