[2021] KEHC 4806 (KLR)
The court found that the appellant was not informed of his right to legal representation as required by Article 50(2)(g) of the Constitution. This omission constituted a fundamental breach of the right to a fair trial. Citing BOO vs. Republic [2020] eKLR, the court held that such a breach renders the entire...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2021] KEHC 4806 (KLR)
- Parties
- Appellant: Felix Omondi Midamba; Respondent: Republic
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Homa Bay
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Criminal Appeal 39 of 2018
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Appeal / Judgment
- Outcome
- conviction quashed, sentence set aside, retrial ordered
- Judges
- KW Kiarie
- Legal Topics
- Defilement, Sexual Offences Act, Right to Fair Trial, Voir Dire Examination
- 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
Felix Omondi Midamba
Appellant
Republic
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the appellant's right to a fair trial under Article 50 of the Constitution was breached.
- 2 Whether failure to inform the appellant of his right to legal representation rendered the trial a nullity.
- 3 Whether the conviction and sentence were sustainable in light of the alleged procedural irregularities.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the appellant was not informed of his right to legal representation as required by Article 50(2)(g) of the Constitution. This omission constituted a fundamental breach of the right to a fair trial. Citing BOO vs. Republic [2020] eKLR, the court held that such a breach renders the entire proceedings, judgment, and sentence a nullity. Consequently, the conviction and sentence could not stand in law. The court declined to analyze the other grounds of appeal, as the failure to inform the appellant of his right to counsel was dispositive. The appropriate remedy was to quash the conviction and set aside the sentence, and to order a retrial before a different magistrate.
Court Disposition
conviction quashed, sentence set aside, retrial ordered
Orders
- The conviction is quashed and the sentence set aside.
- The appellant is to be released into police custody and escorted to Oyugis Magistrate’s Court for retrial by a magistrate of competent jurisdiction other than Hon. J.S. Wesonga.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
28 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT HOMA BAY
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 39 OF 2018
FELIX OMONDI MIDAMBA..................................................APPELLANT
VERSUS
REPUPLIC...........................................................................RESPONDENT
(From the original conviction and sentence in S.O.A case No. 30 of 2016 of the Principal Magistrate’s Court at Oyugis by Hon. J.S. Wesonga–Senior Resident Magistrate)
JUDGMENT
1. Felix Omondi Midamba, the appellant herein, was convicted for the offence of defilement contrary to section 8 (1) as read with section 8 (3) of the Sexual Offences Act No. 3 0f 2006.
2. The particulars of the offence are that on 13th November, 2016 in Rachuonyo North sub County within Homa Bay County, intentionally and unlawfully caused his penis to penetrate the vagina of LA, a child aged 14 years.
3. The appellant was sentenced to serve twenty years imprisonment. He was aggrieved and filed this appeal against both conviction and sentence. The appellant was represented by G.S. Okoth & Company Advocates. He raised nine grounds of appeal which can be summarized as follows:
a) That the right of the appellant to fair trial as provided for under Article 50 of the Constitution was breached.
b) That the trial magistrate erred in law and in fact in failing to record the entire voir dire examination.
c) That the trial magistrate erred in law and in fact in failing to appreciate that material witnesses were not called.
d) That the trial magistrate erred in law and in fact in convicting on inadequate evidence.
e) That the trial magistrate erred in law and in fact in failing to exercise discretion in sentencing.
4. The appeal was opposed by the state through Mr. Ochengo, learned counsel, on grounds that there was sufficient evidence and that the sentence was legal.
5. This is a first appellate court. As expected, I have analyzed and evaluated afresh all the evidence adduced before the lower court and I have drawn my own conclusions while bearing in mind that I neither saw nor heard any of the witnesses. I will be guided by the celebrated case of Okeno vs. Republic [1972] EA 32.
6. Article 50 of the Constitution of Kenya provides for the right to fair trial. Sub Article 2( g) states:
(2) Every accused person has the right to a fair trial, which includes the right—
) to choose, and be represented by, an advocate, and to be informed of this right promptly;
7. It was argued that it was not explained to the appellant that he the right to be represented by an advocate and the trial therefore amounted to a mistrial. The defence relied on the case of BOO vs. Republic[2020] eKLR where Mrima J stated:
I therefore fully associate myself with the school which fronts the position that upon proof of derogation of the right under Article 50(2)(g) of the Constitution then the trial is rendered a nullity. Qualifying the provisions of Article 50(2)(g) of the Constitution will be tantamount to amending the Constitution through a back door, an act which this Court must frown at. It may appear like the position is harsh and is likely to fan multiple applications and appeals, but I must say that unless Courts, as custodians of justice and the Rule of Law, are prepared to enforce the Constitution as it is the intentions of the People of Kenya as expressed in the Constitution will never be realized. I therefore find and hold that the entire proceedings, judgment and sentence before the trial court are a nullity and cannot stand in law.
8. I have perused the record herein and I agree that the appellant was not informed of his right to legal representation. This was therefore a mistrial.
9. It would be purely academic to analyse the other issues. I quash the conviction and set aside the sentence. I order that the appellant to be released into police custody and be escorted to Oyugis Magistrate’s Court for retrial by a magistrate of competent jurisdiction other than Hon. J.S. Wesonga.
DELIVERED AND SIGNED AT HOMA BAY THIS 26TH DAY OF JULY, 2021
KIARIE WAWERU KIARIE
JUDGE