[2010] KEHC 2052 (KLR)
The court found that the plea was not properly taken as the language used during plea taking was not indicated and the answer to the charge was not recorded. This contravened section 77(2)(b) of the Constitution, which requires that an accused be informed of the charge in a language he understands. The court also...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2010] KEHC 2052 (KLR)
- Parties
- Appellant: Andrew Wekesa Barasa; Respondent: Republic
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Bungoma
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Criminal Appeal 55 of 2009
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Appeal / Judgment
- Outcome
- appeal_allowed
- Judges
- FN Muchemi
- Legal Topics
- Plea Taking, Language of Court, Fitness to Stand Trial, Contradictory Evidence, Preparation to Commit Felony
- 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
Andrew Wekesa Barasa
Appellant
Republic
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the plea was properly taken in accordance with the law.
- 2 Whether the language used in court was indicated and understood by the appellant.
- 3 Whether the evidence presented was sufficient to sustain a conviction for preparation to commit a felony.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the plea was not properly taken as the language used during plea taking was not indicated and the answer to the charge was not recorded. This contravened section 77(2)(b) of the Constitution, which requires that an accused be informed of the charge in a language he understands. The court also found that the evidence presented was insufficient to sustain a conviction for preparation to commit a felony, as there were material doubts regarding the recovery of the exhibit and contradictions in the prosecution evidence. Consequently, the proceedings were declared null and void, and the conviction and sentence were set aside.
Court Disposition
appeal_allowed
Orders
- The conviction and sentence are set aside.
- The appellant is set at liberty unless otherwise lawfully held.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
20 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT BUNGOMA Criminal Appeal 55 of 2009 (Appeal from original BGM CM CR. NO. 114 of 2008) ANDREW WEKESA BARASA.................................................APPELLANT ~VRS~ REPUBLIC..................................................................................REPONDENT JUDGMENT
Andrew Wekesa Barasa was convicted by BungomaResident Magistrate of the offence of preparation to commit a felony contrary to section 308 (1) of the Penal Code and sentenced to two years imprisonment.Being aggrieved of both the conviction and sentence, the appellant lodged this appeal.
The grounds of appeal as contained in the petition are as follows
: a) That the language of the trial court was not understood by the Appellants;
b) That the Appellant’s mental status as to fitness for trial was not ascertained;
c) That identification was not established;
d) That the evidence was contradictory; and
e) That the sentence imposed was harsh and excessive
Mr. Luchivia argued the grounds of appeal explaining the issues based on the evidence on record.He submitted that the court did not inquire as to the language the Appellant understood thus contravening section 77 of the Constitution.Hebrought out the contradictions in the evidence of the witnesses as to how the Appellant was dressed at the time of offence.The evidence on recovery of the exhibit was wanting according to the Appellant.
The state conceded to the appeal.Mrs. Leting, State Counsel submitted that the language used was not indicated and that the answer by the accused to the charge was not recorded.
On perusal of the appeal record and the original file, there are errors apparent on the face of the record.They typed proceedings show that the appellant was arraigned in court on 4/3/2008 and that no plea was taken.The original file shows that the accused appeared in court for plea on 29/1/2008. The language used during plea taking was not indicated.The court did not make any inquiries from the appellant as to what language he understands.The answer to the charge is not indicated.What is on record is some scribbling of some illegible word like “PNGE” coming before the fixing of a hearing date.The plea was therefore not taken according to the principles as by law established. The language used in court on the 29/01/2008 is not indicated.This contravenes section 77 (2) (b) of the Constitution which requires that the accused be informed of the charge in the language that he understands.
The contradictions in the evidence of PW1 and PW2 was negligible in that both agreed on material particulars touching on the ingredients of the charge.However the manner in which the exhibit was recovered was not clear.PW 1 said the Appellant attempted to throw away the panga.PW1 then took it with him to his house while the members of public arrested the Appellant and took him to the village elder.PW1 did not explain the reason for remaining behind with the panga as the Appellant was handed over to the relevant authority.The exhibit ought to have been taken to the village elder together with the suspect. This raises doubt whether the Appellant was armed during the commission of the offence.
PW2 said the Appellant was at the cattle shed and wanted to steal the cows.Her evidence does not support the charge of preparation to commit a felony.It is also out of character with the evidence of PW1 who was with PW2 at the material time.
Having found that the plea was not taken properly and that the language during the trial was not indicated, I hereby declare the proceedings null and void.The evidence presented is not capable of resulting to a conviction evenif retrial was to be ordered.
For these reasons, I set aside the conviction and sentence which were based on null and void proceedings.The Appellant is hereby set at liberty unless otherwise lawfully held.
F. N. MUCHEMI
JUDGE
Judgment dated and delivered on the 14th day of July, 2010 in the presence of the Appellant, the State Counsel Mrs. Leting and Mr. Onchiri for Luchivia for Appellant.
F. N. MUCHEMI
JUDGE