Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
Court of AppealStruck OutNot stated in the judgment· [1988] KECA 126 (KLR)

Jopley Constantine Oyieng v Republic [1988] KECA 126 (KLR)

Court of Appeal of Kenya
24 November 1988
734 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~3 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

Kenya's Court of Appeal ruled that private citizens cannot use constitutional provisions to launch private prosecutions—that power rests with the Attorney-General and the courts.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The appellant, a former civil servant who believed colleagues had schemed against him and that a crime had been committed, twice sought the Chief Magistrate's leave to conduct a private prosecution and was refused both times. He then filed an application in the High Court under sections 67 and 84 of the Constitution. Aragon J, after a short hearing on a preliminary issue raised by the D.P.P., held on 12th February 1988 that the application was incompetent, and the appellant appealed to the Court of Appeal arguing he had not been heard on the substantive application and that the judge had erred. Nyarangi, Platt and Apaloo JJA, in a single judgment of the court, disagreed. They held that under section 67(1) of the Constitution it is the subordinate court, not the party, that refers a constitutional question to the High Court; the party may only request such a reference. Since nothing before the Chief Magistrate involved constitutional interpretation, section 67 did not apply. On section 84, the court held that the appellant was pursuing a right to file a private prosecution, a right the Constitution vests only in the Attorney-General under section 26; section 88(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code does not override section 26, and the appellant failed to show he was within sections 79 to 83 of the Constitution. The court further held that no right of appeal existed, rights of appeal being creatable only by statute. The appeal was held incompetent and struck out. The decision of Aragon J stood.

Key legal issues

#
01

Invocation of section 67(1) of the Constitution

Holding

The reference mechanism under section 67(1) belongs to the subordinate court; where no such reference is made and no question of constitutional interpretation arises in the subordinate court, the section does not apply.

Reasoning

The court held that where a constitutional question arises in subordinate court proceedings, the magistrate may refer it to the High Court if a substantial question of law is involved. The party cannot itself mount the reference; it can only ask the subordinate court to do so. Since nothing before the Chief Magistrate concerned interpretation of the Constitution, section 67 did not apply.

p. 2
02

Section 84 enforcement of fundamental rights and private prosecution

Holding

A person seeking to institute a private prosecution cannot use section 84 unless he alleges contravention of a provision of sections 70 to 83 of the Constitution; a right to prosecute privately is not such a right, and section 26 vests criminal prosecutions in the Attorney-General.

Reasoning

The court reasoned that section 84 applies only where a person alleges that provisions of sections 70 to 83 have been, are being, or are likely to be contravened. The appellant was pursuing a right to file a private prosecution, which the Constitution does not extend to private individuals; section 88(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code does not override section 26 of the Constitution. The appellant also failed to show he was within sections 79 to 83.

p. 2
03

Competence of the appeal

Holding

There being no statutory right of appeal from a matter under section 67(1), the appeal before the Court of Appeal was not a criminal appeal and was incompetent.

Reasoning

The court observed that even if the High Court matter had concerned section 67(1) of the Constitution, no right of appeal had been given. Rights of appeal can only be created by statute. Accordingly the appeal was not a criminal appeal and was struck out.

p. 2

Legal principles established

#
  • Under section 67(1) of the Constitution, it is the subordinate court, not the party, that makes the reference to the High Court; the party may only request the reference.
  • Section 88(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code does not override section 26 of the Constitution; only the Attorney-General has the constitutional right to institute criminal proceedings, with no equivalent private right.
  • A right of appeal exists only if conferred by statute.

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The appeal is struck out as incompetent

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Constitution of Kenyasection 67
  • Constitution of Kenyasection 67(1)
  • Constitution of Kenyasection 84
  • Constitution of Kenyasection 26
  • Constitution of Kenyasection 26(3)
  • Constitution of Kenyasections 70 to 83 (inclusive)
  • Constitution of Kenyasections 79 to 83 (inclusive)
  • Criminal Procedure Codesection 88(1)
  • Criminal Procedure Codesection 89(5)
On appeal from
High Court of Kenya at Nairobi
Criminal application number 467 of 1987, Nairobi (as identified in the judgment)
Jurisdiction invoked
Sections 67 and 84 of the Constitution of Kenya; appeal against an order of the High Court

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Later judgments citing this (2)

#

Judgments in the corpus that rely on this one. Where the Court said how it treated the authority, that is shown.

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Jopley Constantine Oyieng v Republic [1988] KECA 126 (KLR)", Case Analysis (1988). Not stated in the judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/1988/126/eng@1988-11-24

Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.