[2024] KEHC 15099 (KLR)
The court found that the applicant's constitutional right to a fair trial, specifically the right to legal representation, was violated when the trial court proceeded in the absence of his counsel due to internet connectivity issues. The absence of contrary evidence from the prosecution and the communication of the...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2024] KEHC 15099 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Stanley Oduor Odiambo; Respondent: Republic
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Siaya
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Criminal Revision E088 of 2024
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Revision / Ruling
- Outcome
- application allowed
- Judges
- RE Aburili
- Legal Topics
- Right to Fair Trial, Legal Representation, Virtual Hearings, Supervisory Jurisdiction
- 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
Stanley Oduor Odiambo
Applicant
Republic
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Criminal Revision / Ruling
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the applicant's right to legal representation under Article 50(2) of the Constitution was violated by proceeding in the absence of his advocate.
- 2 Whether the proceedings of 18/3/2024 should be set aside and prosecution witnesses recalled due to the absence of the applicant's counsel.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the applicant's constitutional right to a fair trial, specifically the right to legal representation, was violated when the trial court proceeded in the absence of his counsel due to internet connectivity issues. The absence of contrary evidence from the prosecution and the communication of the predicament to the prosecution counsel reinforced this finding. The court exercised its supervisory jurisdiction to set aside the proceedings of 18/3/2024 and ordered that the prosecution witnesses who testified on that date be recalled to testify afresh in the presence of both parties and their advocates.
Court Disposition
application allowed
Orders
- The proceedings of 18/3/2024 in Ukwala PM Cr. E017/2023 are set aside and vacated.
- Prosecution witnesses who testified on 18/3/2024 shall be recalled to testify on a suitable date in the presence of both parties and their advocates.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
23 paragraphs
Odiambo v Republic (Criminal Revision E088 of 2024) [2024] KEHC 15099 (KLR) (25 November 2024) (Ruling)
Neutral citation: [2024] KEHC 15099 (KLR)
Republic of Kenya
In the High Court at Siaya
Criminal Revision E088 of 2024
RE Aburili, J
November 25, 2024
Between
Stanley Oduor Odiambo
Applicant
and
Republic
Respondent
Ruling
1. The Applicant Stanley Oduor Odhiambo is an accused in Ukwala PM Cr. E017/2023 where he was charged of the offence of Robbery with Violence contrary to Section 296 of the Penal Code.
2. On 18/3/2024, in the absence of his advocate who now says his network for virtual hearing was faulty, the court proceeded to hear and complete the prosecution witnesses and placed the accused on his defence which traumatized him that he attempted to escape from lawful custody leading to him to be sentenced to serve 6 months imprisonment. The Applicant seeks that the proceedings of 18/3/2024 be set aside and all the witnesses who testified on that date be recalled to testify again.
3. One of the unlimited rights of an accused person under Article 50 (2) of the Constitution is the right to be represented by an advocate of own choice during the trial.
4. In this case, there is no contrary evidence from the Prosecution Counsel that Mr. Ochanyo had internet issues and spoke to the prosecution counsel his predicament but the advocate watching brief for the complainant insisted on the court proceeding with the hearing, absence of Mr. Ochanyo counsel for the accused person notwithstanding.
5. There is no evidence that the accused was hell bent to derail the hearing since he was present on the hearing date, only that his counsel was not available on the platform.
6. As courts, we are aware of the accused person’s right to a fair trial which rights cannot be limited. In this case, that right was curtailed because his counsel was absent owing to bad internet connectivity, which fact he had already communicated to the prosecution counsel.
7. I therefore exercise supervisory jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 165 (6) and (7) of the Constitution and set aside and vacate the proceedings of 18/3/2024 and direct that the prosecution witnesses who testified on that date shall be recalled to testify on a suitable date to be fixed in the presence of both parties and their advocates. This ruling to be served upon the trial court and the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions, Ukwala and Siaya for appropriate action.
8. This file is closed. I so order.
DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED AT SIAYA THIS 25TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2024. R. E. ABURILIJUDGE