[2008] KEHC 52 (KLR)
The court found that the applicant had been detained for a period far in excess of the constitutional limits for pre-trial detention, and that the state had failed to provide any explanation or justification for the delay. Citing binding Court of Appeal precedents, the court held that such unexplained and prolonged...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2008] KEHC 52 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Makokha Imbiakha; Respondent: Republic
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Kakamega
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Miscellaneous Criminal Application 52 of 2008
- Procedural Posture
- Miscellaneous Criminal Application / Ruling on Constitutional Application for Release and Termination of Charges
- Outcome
- application allowed; applicant acquitted and released
- Legal Topics
- Right to Liberty, Pre Trial Detention, Fair Trial Rights, Unexplained Delay, Habeas Corpus
- 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
Makokha Imbiakha
Applicant
Republic
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Criminal Application / Ruling on Constitutional Application for Release and Termination of Charges
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the applicant's prolonged detention before being brought to court constituted a violation of his constitutional right to liberty.
- 2 Whether the unexplained delay in arraignment entitled the applicant to an acquittal and termination of criminal charges.
- 3 Whether the applicant could receive a fair trial after the constitutional breach.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the applicant had been detained for a period far in excess of the constitutional limits for pre-trial detention, and that the state had failed to provide any explanation or justification for the delay. Citing binding Court of Appeal precedents, the court held that such unexplained and prolonged detention constituted a violation of the applicant's constitutional rights to liberty and a fair trial. The absence of any attempt by the state to satisfy the court that the applicant was brought to court as soon as reasonably practicable left the court with no option but to find a constitutional breach. Consequently, the court determined that the only appropriate remedy was to...
Court Disposition
application allowed; applicant acquitted and released
Orders
- The criminal charges against the applicant are terminated forthwith.
- The applicant shall be set at liberty unless otherwise lawfully held.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
36 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA
AT KAKAMEGA
MISCELLANEOUS CRIMINAL APPLICATION 52 OF 2008
MAKOKHA IMBIAKHA ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: APPLICANT
V E R S U S
REPUBLIC :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: RESPONDENT
R U L I N G
The applicant seeks a declaration that his incarceration for a period that was in excess of that which is allowed under the Constitution of the Republic of Kenya, constitutes an infringement of his constitutional rights to liberty.
He asks this court to declare that because his constitutional rights had been infringed, he would not get a fair trial.
Therefore, he asks this court to set him at liberty forthwith.
When the matter came up before the court on 9th October 2008, the court directed that the charges of murder, which had been preferred against the applicant, be terminated forthwith. I also ordered that the applicant be set at liberty forthwith, unless he was otherwise lawfully held.
Having secured the liberty of the applicant, I reserved my reasons until now.
The uncontroverted facts are, firstly, that the applicant was arrested on 21st March 2008. The police told him that he was being arrested because, one JARED MULUPI, whom the applicant had allegedly assaulted earlier, had now passed away.
The applicant was held in custody at the Kabras Police Station for 2 months.
It was not until his advocate filed a “Habeas Corpus application” that the applicant was brought to court for the first time. That was on 27th May 2008, and he was charged with murder.
However, the applicant decided to file a petition to challenge the legality of his long detention in the police cells. And whilst still pursuing his constitutional rights, the applicant asked that the plea be deferred.
By the 9th of October 2008, when the application came up for hearing, the state had not filed any replying affidavit. And, the learned senior state counsel, Mr. D. Karuri, candidly admitted that the police had not given him any valid explanation for the delay in bringing the applicant to court.
It was because the state did not even attempt to offer an explanation for the delay that this court decided to set the applicant free forthwith.
In ELIUD NJERU NYAGA Vs. REPUBLIC, CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.182 OF 2006, the Court of Appeal said, inter alia;
“While we would reiterate the position that under the fair-trial provisions of the constitution, an accused person must be brought to court within twenty-four hours for non-capital offences and within fourteen days for capital offences, yet it would be unreasonable to hold that any delay must amount
to a constitutional breach and must result in an automatic acquittal.”
I have deemed it necessary to make reference to that decision because the applicant herein had also asked this court to declare that because of the delay in bringing him before the court, he would not get a fair trial.
Just as the Court of Appeal stated, not all delays constitute a constitutional breach, which would result in an automatic acquittal. But then it is clear that it is only when the state gives a reasonable explanation, and satisfies the court that the accused person had been brought to court as soon as reasonably practicable, that the court would hold that there was no constitutional breach.
In my considered view, that has always been the position. I say so because even in the celebrated decision of ALBANUS MWASIA MUTUA Vs. REPUBLIC, CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.120 OF 2004, the Court of Appeal held as follows;
“The jurisprudence which emerges from the cases we have cited in the judgement appears to be that an unexplained violation of a constitutional right will normally result in an acquittal…….”
In this case, the applicant had been in custody for a period of 7 months, by the time this application came up for hearing. That length of time is comparable to that in the case of ALBANUS M. MUTUA, in which the Court of Appeal held that the appellant was unlikely to have his trial held within a reasonable time.
I am not only bound by that decision but I find myself persuaded about its accuracy and sense of justice..
In GERALDMACHARIA GITHUKU V. REPUBLIC, CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.119 OF 2004, the Court of appeal said that;
“Although the offence for which he was to be charged was a capital offence, no attempt was made by the Republic, upon whom the burden rested, to satisfy the court that the appellant had been brought before the court as soon as was reasonably practicable.”
Therefore, it is clear that regardless of the nature of the offence with which an accused person has been charged, his constitutional rights must be respected.
In the circumstances, although the applicant was charged with murder, having held that the state had violated his constitutional rights, and also that no explanation at all was offered for the long delay before the applicant was brought to court, I find and hold that he is entitled to an acquittal.
Therefore the criminal charges against him shall be terminated forthwith, and the applicant shall be set at liberty, unless he is otherwise lawfully held.
Dated, Signed and Delivered at Kakamega, this 3rd day of December 2008.
FRED A OCHIENG
J U D G E