They argued that the lower court had already addressed the issues raised in the application. They also urged the court to allow the criminal trial to proceed to its conclusion.
Complainants pppose Chelogoi application
During submissions before Justice Alexander Muteti, counsel for the complainants argued that Chelogoi’s judicial review application was improperly before the court.
The lawyer said the application sought to delay a criminal case that had already reached an advanced stage.
Counsel argued that Chelogoi relied on constitutional provisions and judicial review remedies. However, he maintained that the dispute arose from an ongoing criminal trial.
He told the court that the trial court should resolve the issues within the existing proceedings.
“I still maintain that these are judicial review proceedings,” counsel submitted.
Lawyers say issues have already been decided
The complainants told the court that Chelogoi had previously challenged parts of the criminal proceedings.
They said several courts had already granted him relief on earlier applications.
Counsel argued that Chelogoi returned to the High Court despite having other legal options, including criminal revision proceedings.
He also accused the applicant of forum shopping by filing similar issues before different divisions of the High Court.
The lawyer added that the subordinate court had already considered many of the issues raised in the latest application.
He said previous litigation had also addressed some of the same matters.
Criminal trial nears completion
The complainants argued that the criminal case had progressed significantly.
They told the court that the prosecution had already closed its case.
The accused persons have now entered their defence.
Counsel argued that stopping the trial now would delay justice and prolong a dispute that has remained before the courts for years.
He urged the High Court to allow the trial court to conclude the case without further interruptions.
Constitutional issues raised
Counsel acknowledged that the High Court has powers under Article 23 of the Constitution to enforce the Bill of Rights.
However, he argued that Chelogoi had improperly framed the current application as a constitutional matter.
He submitted that dissatisfaction with decisions made by the lower court does not automatically create a constitutional dispute.
The lawyer also noted that many litigants seek constitutional orders affecting criminal proceedings.
He argued that such applications should not automatically stop an ongoing criminal trial.
Justice Muteti questions Jurisdiction
Justice Alexander Muteti asked whether the High Court could exercise its constitutional jurisdiction when alleged rights violations arise during criminal proceedings.
Counsel maintained that the court should strike out the application.
“Whether I am right or wrong, I still maintain that these are judicial review proceedings,” he told the court.
High court to decide the next step
The complainants urged the High Court to allow the criminal trial to reach its logical conclusion.
They argued that completing the trial would best serve the interests of justice.
Chelogoi is challenging the proceedings before the trial court. He claims the court violated his right to a fair hearing.
He also questions the jurisdiction of the magistrate who handled parts of the case after her transfer to another station.
The High Court will decide whether to hear the application or allow the criminal trial to continue.
