[2022] KEHC 795 (KLR)
The court found that the charge sheet was defective as it failed to include the verbatim words allegedly uttered by the appellant in the offence of threatening to kill, thus not meeting the legal requirements for framing charges. For the offence of malicious damage to property, the facts presented by the prosecution...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2022] KEHC 795 (KLR)
- Parties
- Appellant: Kenneth Omondi Kombo; Respondent: Republic
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Kisumu
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Criminal Appeal E028 of 2021
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Appeal / Judgment
- Outcome
- appeal_allowed
- Legal Topics
- Defective Charge Sheet, Equivocal Plea, Malicious Damage to Property, Threatening to Kill
- 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
Kenneth Omondi Kombo
Appellant
Republic
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the charge sheet was incurably defective for failing to cite the alleged words uttered by the appellant.
- 2 Whether the plea of guilty was unequivocal given the facts and circumstances presented.
- 3 Whether the facts presented by the prosecution supported the charges as framed.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the charge sheet was defective as it failed to include the verbatim words allegedly uttered by the appellant in the offence of threatening to kill, thus not meeting the legal requirements for framing charges. For the offence of malicious damage to property, the facts presented by the prosecution (damage to utensils) did not support the charge (damage to a window), resulting in a variance that rendered the conviction unsustainable. Furthermore, the court held that the plea was equivocal due to evidence of intoxication and confusion at the material time, as acknowledged by both the prosecution and the appellant. Consequently, the convictions could not stand, and the...
Court Disposition
appeal_allowed
Orders
- The appeal is allowed.
- The conviction is quashed and the sentences are set aside.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
37 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA
AT KISUMU
HCCRA NO. E028 OF 2021
KENNETH OMONDI KOMBO....................................................................................APPELLANT
VERSUS
REPUBLIC..................................................................................................................RESPONDENT
[Being an appeal against the Judgment and decision of the Chief Magistrate’s Court at Kisumu
(Hon. P. N. Gesora (CM) dated the 13th August 2021 in Kisumu CMCCRC No.E607 of 2021]
JUDGMENT
The Appellant was convicted for committing two offences, being;
(a) Threatening to kill, contrary to Section 223 (1)of the Penal Code; and
(b) Malicious Damage to Property contrary to Section 339 (1) of the Penal Code.
1. The conviction was on the Appellant’s own plea of guilty.
2. He was then sentenced to 4 Years imprisonment for the offence of threatening to kill; and another 1 Year for the offence of malicious damage to property.
3. He has challenged the conviction, reasoning that the Charge, as drafted, was incurably defective. He also submitted that the plea was equivocal.
4. In answer to the appeal, Ms Odumba, learned Principal Prosecution Counsel, conceded that the Charge Sheet was defective, as it had failed to meet the standards required in framing of charges.
5. In particular, the Respondent observed that the charge failed to contain a verbatim citation of the words which the Appellant had allegedly uttered.
6. Accordingly, I find that the charge was defective, in relation to the first offence.
7. As regards the offence of malicious damage to property, the charge-sheet indicated that the Appellant had unlawfully damaged a window.
8. However, the facts which the prosecution provided at the time when the Appellant was taking plea, was that the Appellant damaged some utensils.
9. I find that the Respondent was right when it conceded that the facts which were read out did not support the charge.
10. Accordingly, as the facts were at variance with the charge-sheet, the conviction cannot be sustained because the facts which the Appellant admitted, are not those for which he was convicted.
11. I also note that it was the prosecution which told the court that;
“Accused appeared there drunk and started quarreling his mother forfavouring his other siblings.”
12. In other words, it was not the Appellant who had put forward a defence of intoxication.
13. As the prosecution knew that the Appellant was drunk at the material time, it is arguable whether or not the Appellant was capable of “wilfully”damaging the Complainant’s property.
14. Indeed, the record of the proceedings reveals that during mitigation the Appellant stated thus;
“I am remorseful. I was confused.
I pray for a chance.”
15. I am of the considered view that because the prosecution had said to the court that the Appellant was drunk; and because the Appellant said that he was confused at the material time, the plea ought to have been construed as being equivocal.
16. In the result, the appeal is allowed. I quash the conviction and set aside the sentences.
17. I order that the Appellant be set at liberty forthwith, unless he is otherwise lawfully held.
DATED, SIGNED and DELIVERED at KISUMU
This31stday of March2022
FRED A. OCHIENG
JUDGE