[2017] KEHC 757 (KLR)

[2017] KEHC 757 (KLR)

The court found that the prosecution proved the charge of creating disturbance beyond reasonable doubt, as the evidence showed the appellant was found at the scene holding a stone and had threatened the complainant. The defence did not rebut this evidence, nor did the appellant call witnesses to support his version....

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2017] KEHC 757 (KLR)
Parties
Appellant: Henry Muriungi; Respondent: Republic
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Meru
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Criminal Appeal 92 of 2016
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Judgment
Outcome
Appeal allowed in part; conviction and sentence on count two quashed; conviction and sentence on count one upheld.
Judges
SJ Chitembwe
Legal Topics
Creating Disturbance, Breach of Peace, Obstructing Police Officer, Standard of Proof, Criminal Sentencing
Source Language
en
Criminal Law Creating Disturbance Breach of Peace Obstructing Police Officer Standard of Proof Criminal Sentencing

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Downloadable case file Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Henry Muriungi

Appellant

Republic

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Judgment

  1. 1 Whether the prosecution proved the charge of creating disturbance beyond reasonable doubt.
  2. 2 Whether the prosecution proved the charge of obstructing a police officer beyond reasonable doubt.
  3. 3 Whether the appellant's right to be placed on his defence under section 211 of the Criminal Procedure Code was violated.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the prosecution proved the charge of creating disturbance beyond reasonable doubt, as the evidence showed the appellant was found at the scene holding a stone and had threatened the complainant. The defence did not rebut this evidence, nor did the appellant call witnesses to support his version. However, the court held that the charge of obstructing a police officer was not proved beyond reasonable doubt, as there was insufficient evidence of resistance or obstruction during the arrest. The court therefore upheld the conviction and sentence on the first count but allowed the appeal on the second count, quashing the conviction and sentence for obstruction.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed in part; conviction and sentence on count two quashed; conviction and sentence on count one upheld.

Orders

  • The appeal on count two (obstructing a police officer) is allowed; conviction and sentence quashed.
  • The conviction and sentence on count one (creating disturbance) is upheld.