[2019] KEHC 8244 (KLR)
The court found that the appellant's right to a fair trial under Article 50(2)(k) of the Constitution was violated because he was not given an opportunity to cross-examine the child witness. The court emphasized that all prosecution witnesses, including children giving unsworn testimony, must be made available for...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2019] KEHC 8244 (KLR)
- Parties
- Appellant: Meshack Murang'a; Respondent: Republic
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Kisii
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Criminal Appeal 114 of 2018
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Appeal / Judgment
- Outcome
- conviction quashed; retrial ordered
- Judges
- DAS Majanja
- Legal Topics
- Sexual Offences, Fair Trial Rights, Child Witnesses, Cross Examination, 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
Meshack Murang'a
Appellant
Republic
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the appellant's right to a fair trial was violated by not being given an opportunity to cross-examine the child witness.
- 2 Whether the conviction and sentence can stand in light of the procedural irregularity.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the appellant's right to a fair trial under Article 50(2)(k) of the Constitution was violated because he was not given an opportunity to cross-examine the child witness. The court emphasized that all prosecution witnesses, including children giving unsworn testimony, must be made available for cross-examination to ensure the accused's right to challenge evidence. This procedural irregularity was fundamental and rendered the conviction unsafe. Consequently, the court quashed the conviction and sentence, but, considering the recency of the matter, ordered a retrial before a different magistrate.
Court Disposition
conviction quashed; retrial ordered
Orders
- The conviction and sentence are quashed.
- A retrial is ordered before a different magistrate at Kilgoris Magistrate’s Court.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
20 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT KISII
CORAM: D.S MAJANJA J.
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 114 OF 2018
BETWEEN
MESHACK MURANG’A......................APPELLANT
AND
REPUBLIC..........................................RESPONDENT
(Appeal from the original conviction and sentence of Hon. R.M Oanda– PM dated 31st August 2018 at the Principal Magistrate’s Court at Kilgoris in Criminal (Sexual Offences) Case No.47 of 2017)
JUDGMENT
1. The appellant, MESHACK MURANG’A, was charged with attempted defilement contrary to section 9(1)of the Sexual Offences Act. The particulars were that on 20th December 2017 in Narok County, he intentionally and unlawfully attempted to cause his penis to penetrate the vagina of RK, a girl aged 7 years.
2. Having read the record, it is clear that the appellant was not given an opportunity to cross-examine the child. Article 50(2)(k) of the Constitution speaks of the right, "to adduce and challenge evidence". It does not matter that the child gave unsworn testimony. The Court of Appeal discussed this issue in Nicholas Mutuke Wambuke v Republic MSA Criminal Appeal No. 373 of 2006 (UR)and had this to say;
The second point we wish to discuss is whether or not a child witness, who gives evidence not on oath is liable to cross examination. There appears to be a widespread misconception that a child witness who is allowed to give evidence without taking oath because of immature age, should not or cannot be cross-examined..... it would appear that misconception arises from a view that because accused persons are not cross examined whenever they make unsworn statements in the defence, child witnesses who did not take the oath should be treated in the same way. Such a view is oblivious of the peculiar protection given to an accused person in the form of a right to make an unsworn statement with no liability to be cross-examined.
That thinking is expressed in Section 208 of the CPC which governs hearing of criminal proceedings in the Magistrates' courts. It provides that during the hearing, "the accused persons or his advocate may put questions to each witness produced against him." Accordingly, all prosecution witnesses are liable to be cross-examined in order to test the credibility and the veracity of the witness. The trial courts should always observe that requirement of the law in all criminal trials to obviate an otherwise stable case from being lost on that omission.
3. In the circumstances the appellant's right to a fair trial was violated and the resulting conviction cannot be upheld. In the circumstances, I quash the conviction and sentence however as the matter is not too old, I order a retrial. For that purpose, the appellant shall remain in custody and shall be taken to Kilgoris Magistrate’s Court to plead afresh on 6th May 2019. The matter shall be heard by any other magistrate other than Hon. R.M Oanda, PM.
Dated and delivered at Kisii this 30thday of April 2019.
D.S MAJANJA
JUDGE
Mr. Otieno, Senior Prosecution Counsel, instructed by Office of Director of Prosecutions.
Appellant in person.