vs. Eichman, the Permanent Court of International Justice decision in the case of the S.S. Lotus, France v. Turkey as well as the Kenyan High Court (Justice Azangalala) in Hassan M. Ahmed v. Republic in support of those submissions. As the Respondents had not appealed against the trial court’s decision dismissing their objection that it had no jurisdiction to try them, counsel submitted that they were deemed to have acquiesced to the trial jurisdiction and the learned court’s Judge therefore erred in entertaining their judicial review application. He also faulted the of Judge’s subordination Section 69 of the Kenyan Penal Code to Section 5 thereof as baseless. He argued that there is no conflict or gradation between the two sections. He said Section 5 which is in Chapter 3 of the Penal Code grants Kenyan courts jurisdiction to try territorial offences committed anywhere in the country while Section 69 is in Chapter 8 and deals with extra-territorial offences. Counsel also faulted the Judge for making orders that were not sought in the application and worse still against entities that were not party to the application.
vs. Eichman, the Permanent Court of International Justice decision in the case of the S.S. Lotus, France v. Turkey as well as the Kenyan High Court (Justice Azangalala) in Hassan M. Ahmed v. Republic in support of those submissions. As the Respondents had not appealed against the trial court’s decision dismissing their objection that it had no jurisdiction to try them, counsel submitted that they were deemed to have acquiesced to the trial court’s jurisdiction and the learned Judge therefore erred in entertaining their judicial review application. He also faulted the Judge’s subordination of Section 69 of the Kenyan Penal Code to Section 5 thereof as baseless. He argued that there is no conflict or gradation between the two sections. He said Section 5 which is in Chapter 3 of the Penal Code grants Kenyan courts jurisdiction to try territorial offences committed anywhere in the country while Section 69 is in Chapter 8 and deals with extra-territorial offences. Counsel also faulted the Judge for making orders that were not sought in the application and worse still against entities that were not party to the application.