[2019] KEHC 9075 (KLR)
The court held that while section 204 of the Criminal Procedure Code allows withdrawal of a complaint by the complainant at the trial stage, the authority to discontinue prosecution in sexual offences is vested in the DPP under section 40 of the Sexual Offences Act, as read with Article 157 of the Constitution. The...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2019] KEHC 9075 (KLR)
- Parties
- Appellant: Abdul Nuur; Respondent: Republic
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Kabarnet
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Criminal Appeal 134 of 2017
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Appeal / Ruling on Application for Reconciliation and Withdrawal of Complaint on Appeal
- Outcome
- Application for reconciliation allowed to the extent that the complainant's representation on reconciliation will be taken on oath before further orders.
- Judges
- EM Muriithi
- Legal Topics
- Sexual Offences, Withdrawal of Complaint, Prosecutorial Discretion, Reconciliation in Criminal Cases
- Source Language
- en
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Abdul Nuur
Appellant
Republic
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Ruling on Application for Reconciliation and Withdrawal of Complaint on Appeal
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the complainant can withdraw a complaint of rape at the appellate stage.
- 2 Whether the DPP has authority to discontinue prosecution in sexual offences under section 40 of the Sexual Offences Act.
- 3 Whether the court can promote reconciliation and alternative dispute resolution in a criminal appeal for a sexual offence.
Ratio Decidendi
The court held that while section 204 of the Criminal Procedure Code allows withdrawal of a complaint by the complainant at the trial stage, the authority to discontinue prosecution in sexual offences is vested in the DPP under section 40 of the Sexual Offences Act, as read with Article 157 of the Constitution. The DPP's application for reconciliation and withdrawal, made with the apparent authority of the complainant, is therefore proper. The court further found that the complainant, being an adult of sound mind, is capable of consenting to withdrawal and reconciliation. Although section 204 does not apply at the appellate stage, the court may, pursuant to Article 159 of the...
Court Disposition
Application for reconciliation allowed to the extent that the complainant's representation on reconciliation will be taken on oath before further orders.
Orders
- The court shall take the complainant's representation regarding reconciliation with the appellant on oath pursuant to section 358 of the Criminal Procedure Code.
- Further orders to be made after the complainant's representation is taken.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
30 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT KABARNET
HCCRA NO. 134 OF 2017
ABDUL NUUR..............APPELLANT
=VERSUS=
REPUBLIC...............RESPONDENT
[An appeal from the original conviction and sentence of the Principal Magistrate’s Court at Kabarnet Cr. Case no. 387 of 2015 delivered on the 13th day of March, 2015 by Hon. S.O. Temu, PM]
RULING
1. The DPP has urged the Court to allow for reconciliation in the matter of this appeal from a conviction and sentence for the offence of rape contrary to section 3 (3) of the Sexual Offences Act and submitted as follows:
“DPP
The complainant informed me that they wanted to reconcile. The complainant had sought to withdraw in the trial Court and was not given a chance. When the complainant had testified she still indicated that she wanted to forgive the appellant. I feel that the parties were not given a chance to withdraw.
Due to the insistence by the complainant to withdraw the charge, I felt the appellant may have been convicted on a shaky and unreliable evidence. The appellant should be given the benefit of doubt. The complainant is a grown up person and she is entitled to withdraw the charge. She wanted to withdraw the charge from the beginning during the trial Court.”
2. The Court reserved the matter for ruling/directions after considering the legality and propriety of the proposed course of action.
3. Of course, section 204 of the Criminal Procedure Code allows the withdrawal of a complaint in the trial Court in terms as follows:
204. If a complainant, at any time before a final order is passed in a case under this Part, satisfies the Court that there are sufficient grounds for permitting him to withdraw his complaint, the court may permit him to withdraw it and shall thereupon acquit the accused
Part VI of the Criminal Procedure Code under which section 204 falls is on “Procedure in Trials before Subordinate Courts.”
4. Any contest as to who is a “ complainant” which has engaged judges, magistrates and legal practitioners is put paid in cases of Sexual Offences by the provision of section 40 of the Sexual Offences Act which provides that:
“40. The decision as to whether the prosecution or investigation by any police officer of a complaint that a sexual offences has been committed should be discontinued shall rest with the Attorney General”.
5. Article 157 of the Constitution vesting the state prosecutorial powers with the DPP, the authority to discontinue a prosecution or investigation into alleged commission of a sexual offence under section 40 of the Sexual Offences Act must be exercisable by the DPP.
6. The application for reconciliation herein having been made by the DPP or with the apparent authority of the DPP as disclosed by the submissions made in court and set out above, the court must take it that the authority to discontinue the prosecution has been given pursuant to Section 40 of the Sexual Offences Act.
7. The Court agrees with the DPP that the insistence of the complainant from the very first day of trial to withdraw the complaint may be a pointer to credibility of the prosecution’s case and the complainant who was at trial aged 60 years and of sound mind, is a person capable of consenting to the withdrawal of the charges at the trial stage, and reconciling with her alleged assailant on appeal, as well as to the very act of sexual act subject of the charge of rape for which the appellant was convicted and sentenced provoking this appeal. See section 42 of the Sexual Offences Act.
8. What remains, therefore, is for the complainant to signify her reconciliation with the appellant upon which court, even as an appellate court, may act pursuant to Article 159 of the Constitution to promote alternative method of dispute resolution, the matter now being outside the ambit of Section 204 of the Criminal Procedure Code which is for withdrawal of complaint by the complainant at trial stage before a final order in the case.
9. Accordingly, the court shall at this stage upon oath take any representation of the complainant regarding her alleged reconciliation with the appellant pursuant to court’s power to take additional evidence on appeal under section 358 of the Criminal Procedure Code.
Order accordingly.
DATED AND DELIVERED THIS 21ST DAY OF FEBRUARY 2019
EDWARD M. MURIITHI
JUDGE
Appearances:
Appellant in person.
Ms. Macharia, Ass. DPP for the Respondent