[2025] KEHC 16697 (KLR)
The court found that the trial court erred by allowing the prosecution to withdraw charges after the accused persons had already been convicted, and by re-reading charges after conviction. These actions constituted procedural irregularities that rendered the proceedings defective. The court held that each accused...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2025] KEHC 16697 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Yego Morareni; Applicant: Kutoro Kamai; Respondent: Republic
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Kabarnet
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Revision Case E109 of 2024
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Revision / Ruling
- Outcome
- proceedings set aside; matter remitted for fresh charges in separate files
- Judges
- RB Ngetich
- Legal Topics
- Plea Taking, Conviction Procedure, Withdrawal of Charges, Joint Charges
- 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
Yego Morareni
Applicant
Kutoro Kamai
Applicant
Republic
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Criminal Revision / Ruling
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the procedure adopted by the trial court in convicting the accused persons was regular and lawful.
- 2 Whether withdrawal of charges after conviction was proper.
- 3 Whether the accused persons should have been charged separately.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the trial court erred by allowing the prosecution to withdraw charges after the accused persons had already been convicted, and by re-reading charges after conviction. These actions constituted procedural irregularities that rendered the proceedings defective. The court held that each accused should have been charged separately, given that the incidents occurred in different villages with different complainants. As a result, the entire proceedings were set aside and the matter was remitted to the trial court for each accused to be charged in separate files.
Court Disposition
proceedings set aside; matter remitted for fresh charges in separate files
Orders
- The proceedings herein are set aside.
- Each accused person to be charged separately in different files.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
21 paragraphs
Morareni & another v Republic (Revision Case E109 of 2024) [2025] KEHC 16697 (KLR) (3 February 2025) (Ruling)
Neutral citation: [2025] KEHC 16697 (KLR)
Republic of Kenya
In the High Court at Kabarnet
Revision Case E109 of 2024
RB Ngetich, J
February 3, 2025
Between
Yego Morareni
1st Applicant
Kutoro Kamai
2nd Applicant
and
Republic
Respondent
Ruling
1. The accused persons Yego Morareni & Kutoro Kamai were jointly charged with 2 counts of stealing stock contrary to section 278 of the Penal Code. Particulars are as captured in the charge sheet.
2. Each of the two accused persons pleaded guilty to the 2 counts. Particulars of the charge were thereafter read to them and they confirmed the facts were true. I however note that instead of the court convicting the two accused persons upon confirming the facts, what followed were records from the prosecution counsel who said the accused persons were first offenders. Mitigation then followed and after mitigation, the trial court convicted Accused 1 for count I and Accused 2 for count II and proceeded to call for presentence report.
3. Record show that immediately after the trial court directing that presentence report be filed, the prosecution counsel applied to withdraw count I against Accused 2 and count II against Accused 1 so as to have each accused remain with one count. Particulars of the charge show the incident occurred the same night but in different villages and the complainants are also different. In my view, the accused persons should have been charged separately in different files. The prosecution should have also withdrawn the charge before plea taking. At time of plea and conviction, the two accused persons were jointly charged in both counts. Withdrawal of charge against one accused in each count was done after conviction. The process was therefore irregular.
4. Thirdly, on 10/12/2024 charges were re-read to the accused persons. This was done after conviction which is an error on the face of record. In view of irregularities set out above, I am inclined to set aside the proceedings herein and direct that each accused person be charged separately in different files. Mention before trial court on 5/2/2025.
RULING DELIVERED, DATED AND SIGNED IN OPEN COURT AT KABARNET THIS 3RD DAY OF FEBRUARY 2025. RACHEL NGETICHJUDGEIn the presence ofElvis & Milliong’ar, Court Assistants.Accused 1 present.Accused 2 present.