Rex v Kirur and Another (Revision Case No. 118 of 1942)
Observed later treatment
No later-treatment classification is recorded for this judgment.
Citator coverage is limited to judgments in the Wakilii corpus and source-matched treatment records. Absence of a signal is not an assertion that the case remains good law.
AI-generated summary. This summary was generated by AI from the full text of the judgment. It may contain errors or omissions—always read the source judgment before relying on it.
Holding
Where a magistrate proceeds to conviction but does not proceed to sentence, the conviction stands as a bar to further proceedings. The magistrate's successor cannot proceed to sentence the accused, nor can further proceedings be taken for the same offence. The accused must be released from custody.
Outcome
Accused released from custody
Facts
A magistrate, Mr. Carnelley, proceeded to conviction of the accused but did not proceed to sentence. The magistrate who followed him at Kisumu, Sir Howard Elphinstone, attempted to proceed to sentence the accused on the conviction recorded by his predecessor. The matter came before the court on revision to determine whether the successor magistrate had jurisdiction to sentence and whether further proceedings could be taken for the same offence.
Issues
- Whether a magistrate's successor can proceed to sentence an accused where the first magistrate proceeded to conviction but not to sentence.
- Whether further proceedings can be taken for the same offence where a conviction stands without sentence.
Orders
- The magistrate's successor cannot proceed to sentence the accused.
- Further proceedings cannot be taken for the same offence against the accused.
- The accused are directed to be released from custody.
Rules and key headnotes
Cases cited (1)
- Frank Sheridan, 26 Cr. App. Rep. 1
Full judgment
The original judgment as reported. Read the original PDF before relying on any passage.