[2019] KEHC 7755 (KLR)
The court found that the appellant did not request the Occurrence Book entry at trial, nor did it form the core of his defence. There was no evidence that the information only became available recently, and the application was made many years after the trial commenced. The court held that the application was...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2019] KEHC 7755 (KLR)
- Parties
- Appellant: Edwin Kamau Munjiru; Respondent: Republic
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Murang'a
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Criminal Appeal 215 of 2013
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Appeal / Ruling on Interlocutory Application Pending Substantive Appeal
- Outcome
- application dismissed
- Judges
- K Kimondo
- Legal Topics
- Robbery With Violence, Production of Evidence, Disclosure Obligations, Criminal Procedure
- 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
Edwin Kamau Munjiru
Appellant
Republic
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Ruling on Interlocutory Application Pending Substantive Appeal
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the appellant is entitled to production of the Occurrence Book entry as additional evidence at the appellate stage.
- 2 Whether the application for production of the Occurrence Book is an afterthought and without legal foundation.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the appellant did not request the Occurrence Book entry at trial, nor did it form the core of his defence. There was no evidence that the information only became available recently, and the application was made many years after the trial commenced. The court held that the application was belated, an afterthought, and without legal foundation. Consequently, the application for production of the Occurrence Book was dismissed, and the main appeal was set down for hearing.
Court Disposition
application dismissed
Orders
- The application for production of the Occurrence Book entry is dismissed.
- The main appeal shall be set down for hearing.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
28 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA
AT MURANG’A
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 215 OF 2013
[FORMERLY NYERI HIGH COURT CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 32 OF 2012]
EDWIN KAMAU MUNJIRU...........................................APPELLANT
VERSUS
REPUBLIC.....................................................................RESPONDENT
RULING
1. The appellant was adjudged guilty of robbery with violence contrary to section 296 (2) of the Penal Code. He was sentenced to death.
2. The particulars were that on 15th November 2010 he and his co-accused jointly robbed Ephantus Njoroge Kamau of a mobile phone Nokia 1110, Kshs 300, a pair of shoes and a jacket all valued at Kshs 4000 and at or immediately before the robbery they used actual violence on the complainant.
3. His first appeal to the High Court was heard by a mixed bench of a High Court Judge; and, an Employment and Labour Relations Court Judge. The learned judges dismissed the appeal.
4. The renewed appeal follows the directions by the Supreme Court in Republic v Karisa Chengo & 2 others,Petition No. 5 of 2015 [2017] eKLR.
5. On 13th March 2019, the appellant lodged an application praying for production of the Occurrence Book number 20/16/11/2010 from Kahuro Police Station.
6. The application is expressed to be brought under Article 50 (2) (j) of the Constitution. The Article requires the prosecution to make advance disclosure of the evidence to be used at the trial. The appellant avers that the additional evidence will prove his innocence.
7. The petition is contested by the Republic. The gravamen is that the appellant never sought to rely on such evidence at his trial; and, that the application is an afterthought.
8. On 14th March 2019 I heard brief submissions from the appellant and the learned Prosecution Counsel.
9. The substantive appeal is pending for hearing. I am cautious not to comment on the merits of the appeal. But I have closely studied the record of the lower court. The applicant does not say that the Occurrence Book was unavailable during his trial. He never requested for it; and, it never formed the coreof his defence.
10. The application is also belated. The trial commenced way back on 18th November 2010. There is no evidence that that the information only became available recently.
11. The application is undoubtedly an afterthought. It is without legal foundation. It is hereby dismissed. The main appeal shall now be set down for hearing.
It is so ordered.
DATED, SIGNED and DELIVERED at MURANG’A this 13th day of May 2019.
KANYI KIMONDO
JUDGE
Ruling read in open court in the presence of:-
The appellant (absent)
Ms. Gichuru for the Republic instructed by the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions.
Ms. Dorcas and Ms. Elizabeth, Court Clerks.