This is an application for review of trial proceedings presided over by the 1st respondent against the applicant. The relief sought is couched thus:-
“1. The trial proceedings against the applicant presided over by the 1st respondent be and is hereby set aside.
2. The prosecution of the applicant in terms of the Police Act in particular the allegations forming the subject of this case be permanently stayed.
3. The respondents be ordered to pay costs of suit on a client and attorney scale.” More
This matter came to me by way of an urgent chamber application. At the initial set down date, both counsel, particularly counsel for the applicant, intimated that they wished to file some precedents that would guide the court to dispose of the matter appropriately. In view of the legal issues raised and apparent from the affidavits but that had not been fully canvassed, I allowed the request. I also directed the legal practitioners to file further submissions and/or heads of argument if any. Counsel indicated that they would have filed all the said documents by 31 August 2020. Despite my... More
This is an application for condonation of late filing of an application for review under case number HC 2329/16.
BACKGROUND
Prior to 24 May 2016, the applicant was an officer in the Police Service. Following allegations of improper release of suspects and exhibits, the applicant and his accomplice were convicted by a court of a single officer for contravening paragraph 35 of the Schedule to the Police Act (Chapter 11:10) as read with sections 29 and 34 of the said Act i.e. “Acting in a manner reasonably likely to bring discredit to the Police Service.” More
The applicant made this application and simply titled it, “Court application for review”. He listed the grounds for review as follows:
“The dismissal of the applicant’s appeal against discharge by the 1st respondent are full of procedural irregularities in that:
1. By dismissing the applicant’s appeal against discharge, when the state had failed to prove a prima facie case, against applicant, respondents gave themselves power where it is not supposed to exist.
2. The 2nd respondent dismally failed to give reasons for their decision of dismissing applicant’s appeal against discharge. By so doing it is clear that the applicant can... More
This matter came to me as an opposed application. It was an application in terms of Order 40 Rule 359 (8) of the High Court Rules, 1971. After reading documents filed of record and after hearing counsel, I dismissed the application with an award of costs on the ordinary scale. Below are the reasons for my decision. More
