ODPP v Abdi & another & 12 others (Criminal Revision E027 of 2026) [2026] KEHC 7074 (KLR) (11 May 2026) (Ruling) Neutral citation: [2026] KEHC 7074 (KLR) REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT AT GARSEN CRIMINAL REVISION E027 OF 2026 JN NJAGI, J MAY 11, 2026 BETWEEN ODPP .......................................................................................................... APPLICANT AND MOHAMED ABDI & NASIR GYO & 12 OTHERS & 12 OTHERS & 12 OTHERS & 12 OTHERS & 12 OTHERS & 12 OTHERS & 12 OTHERS & 12 OTHERS & 12 OTHERS .......................................................................................... RESPONDENT RULING 1. The file of the lower court in this matter has been placed before this court for revision of the order of the trial magistrate vide a ruling delivered on 28th April 2026 fixing the matter for hearing on 30/4/2026. 2. The same was brought to the attention of the court vide the provisions of Section 362 of the CPC that provides that the High Court may call for a file from the Subordinate Court to satisfy itself as to the correctness, legality, propriety or regularity of any order made by the Subordinate Court. 3. The brief facts of the case are that Hola Criminal Case No.E010/25 R-v-Mohamed Abdi & Nasir Guyo came for a ruling before the trial court on 28/4/2026 and after the ruling was delivered, the trial magistrate ordered that the hearing of the case proceeds on 30/4/2026, which was 2 days later after delivery of the ruling. 4. I have considered the issues raised in the application. The DPP has explained to the court that the prosecutor who is conducting the case was to travel to Hola from Nairobi where he is currently stationed. That he required sufficient time to travel to Hola. 5. That the remaining witnesses are expert witnesses who required time to organize to travel to Hola and that 2 days was not sufficient to do so. https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/7074/eng@2026-05-11 1
page 1 of 2
6. In my consideration, the witnesses to be called by the prosecution required sufficient notice to attend court especially considering that they are expert witnesses and were engaged wherever they were. It was also prudent to indulge the prosecutor who is conducting the matter as he has another court to attend to in Nairobi and he needed time to organize for an alternative prosecutor during the time he would be away from his court. The trial court should have put all these factors in mind when it gave a hearing date after 2 days. It is my humble view that a notice of 2 days to the hearing date was not sufficient. Hurried justice may not always serve the interests of the public. 7. In view of the foregoing, I find that the trial court should have given a hearing notice of at least 2 weeks to the prosecution witnesses and to the prosecutor in view of the fact that they were committed in other state duties. I accordingly order the trial court to give another hearing date with a notice of at least 2 weeks. DELIVERED, DATED AND SIGNED AT GARSEN THIS 11TH DAY OF MAY 2026. J. N. NJAGI JUDGE In the presence of: Mr Oluoch for Applicant Counsel for Respondents absent Court Assistant - Rahma https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/7074/eng@2026-05-11 2
page 2 of 2