[2004] KEHC 1793 (KLR)
The court found that part of the prosecution was conducted by a corporal, who is not qualified under Section 85(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code to act as a public prosecutor. This rendered the appellant's trial a nullity. Consequently, the conviction and sentence were set aside. Upon considering the request for a...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2004] KEHC 1793 (KLR)
- Parties
- Appellant: Michael Wambua; Respondent: Republic
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Mombasa
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- ? 450 of 2002
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Appeal / Ruling on Appeal Against Conviction and Sentence
- Outcome
- Appeal allowed; conviction and sentence set aside; retrial ordered.
- Legal Topics
- Robbery With Violence, Criminal Procedure, Public Prosecutor Qualification, Retrial, Identification Parade
- 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
Michael Wambua
Appellant
Republic
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Ruling on Appeal Against Conviction and Sentence
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the trial was a nullity due to part of the prosecution being conducted by an unqualified prosecutor.
- 2 Whether a retrial should be ordered after the conviction and sentence are set aside.
- 3 Whether the identification parade was properly conducted.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that part of the prosecution was conducted by a corporal, who is not qualified under Section 85(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code to act as a public prosecutor. This rendered the appellant's trial a nullity. Consequently, the conviction and sentence were set aside. Upon considering the request for a retrial, the court examined the lower court record and found that the identification parade was properly conducted with eight people, not seven as claimed by the appellant, and that the appellant was properly identified by three prosecution witnesses. The court was satisfied that there was sufficient evidence to warrant a retrial and that the state was not seeking a retrial to...
Court Disposition
Appeal allowed; conviction and sentence set aside; retrial ordered.
Orders
- The appeal is allowed.
- The conviction and sentence are set aside.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
17 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA
AT MOMBASA
APPELLATE SIDE
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 450 OF 2002
(From Original Conviction and Sentence in Criminal Case No. 374 of 2002 of the Senior Principal Magistrate –Mombasa –J.S. Mushelle (SPM)
MICHAEL WAMBUA …….……………………… APPELLANT
-VERSUS
REPUBLIC ……………………………………. RESPONDENT
R U L I N G
The Appellant and two other people were charged with robbery with violence contrary to Section 296(2) of the Penal Code. After trial before the Senior Principal Magistrate at Mombasa the other two accused persons were acquitted under Section 210 of the Criminal Procedure Code for lack of evidence. The Appellant was, however convicted and sentenced to death. He has appealled against both conviction and sentence.
During the hearing of the appeal Miss Mwaniki, learned State Counsel, conceded the appeal on the ground that part of the prosecution case was conducted by corporal Mwamburi contrary to Section 85(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code. That Section requires that public prosecutors should be advocates of the High Court of Kenya or police officers of the rank of Assistant Inspector of Police and above. As a corporal is below that rank the Appellant’s trial was a nullity. We therefore allow the appeal and set aside the conviction and sentence.
Miss Mwaniki sought a retrial. She submitted that there was evidence against the Appellant and that the state is not seeking a retrial to fill up any gaps in their case. The Appellant opposed a retrial arguing that to grant it will be prejudicial to him. He further argued that the identification parade was not properly conducted as there were only seven people contrary to the police standing rules. We have carefully perused the lower court record. There were eight people in the identification parade and not seven as the Appellant claimed. The parade was properly conducted and the Appellant was properly identified by three prosecution witnesses. We are satisfied that there is evidence which may found a conviction. Accordingly we order that the Appellant be retried before another court of competent jurisdiction. DATED this 8th day of June, 2004.
J. W. MWERA
JUDGE
D.K. MARAGA
AG. JUDGE