[2018] KEHC 3064 (KLR)
The High Court found that the trial magistrate correctly acquitted the respondents under Section 210 of the Criminal Procedure Code, as the prosecution failed to establish a prima facie case. The evidence did not identify which individual among the group committed the assault, and there was no proof of common...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2018] KEHC 3064 (KLR)
- Parties
- Appellant: ODPP; Respondent: Joyce Bonareri Mogaka; Respondent: Naomi Kemunto Mogaka; Respondent: Paul Onyiego Ogito
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nyamira
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Criminal Appeal 55 of 2017
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Appeal / Judgment
- Outcome
- appeal dismissed; acquittal upheld
- Judges
- EM Muchoki
- Legal Topics
- Assault Causing Actual Bodily Harm, Prima Facie Case, Acquittal, Criminal Procedure, Common Intention, Evidence Evaluation
- 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
ODPP
Appellant
Joyce Bonareri Mogaka
Respondent
Naomi Kemunto Mogaka
Respondent
Paul Onyiego Ogito
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the trial magistrate erred in law and fact by not considering the prosecution's evidence.
- 2 Whether the trial magistrate ignored expert evidence without justification.
- 3 Whether the acquittal under Section 210 of the Criminal Procedure Code was proper given the evidence adduced.
Ratio Decidendi
The High Court found that the trial magistrate correctly acquitted the respondents under Section 210 of the Criminal Procedure Code, as the prosecution failed to establish a prima facie case. The evidence did not identify which individual among the group committed the assault, and there was no proof of common intention. The selective arrest of the respondents, without explanation for why others were not charged, further weakened the prosecution's case. The court concluded that no reasonable tribunal could convict the respondents on the evidence presented, and the possibility of the respondents being framed due to a land dispute was plausible. The appeal was therefore dismissed and the...
Court Disposition
appeal dismissed; acquittal upheld
Orders
- The appeal is dismissed.
- The order of acquittal under Section 210 of the Criminal Procedure Code is upheld.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
27 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA
AT NYAMIRA
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 55 OF 2017
ODPP...................................................................................APPELLANT
=VRS=
1. JOYCE BONARERI MOGAKA............................1ST RESPONDENT
2. NAOMI KEMUNTO MOGAKA............................2ND RESPONDENT
3. PAUL ONYIEGO OGITO.....................................3RD RESPONDENT
[Being an Appeal from the Ruling of Hon. N. Kahara – Resident
Magistratedelivered on the 16th day of October 2015
in Keroka PM Criminal Case No. 492 of 2015]
JUDGEMENT
This is an appeal by the State against the acquittal of the respondents by the trial court. The respondents were charged on three counts of Assault causing actual bodily harm contrary to Section 251 of the Penal Code. It was alleged that on 10th April 2015 they jointly with others not before court assaulted Sara Moraa (count 1), Abel Manoti (count II and Amoth Nyangera (count III) at a place called upper Mwongori village in Borabu sub-county, Nyamira County.
After hearing and considering the evidence of the prosecution witnesses the trial magistrate found there was no prima facie case established against the accused persons sufficiently to warrant them to be put on their defence and acquitted them under Section 210 of the Criminal Procedure Code.
Being aggrieved, the State preferred this appeal. Its grounds of appeal are: -
“1. That, the learned trial magistrate erred in law and fact, by not considering the evidence of the prosecution.
2. That, the learned trial Magistrate occasioned a miscarriage of justice by importing an erroneous assessment of the facts presented by the prosecution.
3. That, the learned trial magistrate erred in law and fact, by blatantly ignoring the expert evidence of the clinical officer without giving any considerable reasons thereof.
4. That, the learned trial magistrate erred in law and fact by purporting to introduce her own version of events, different from the facts presented in court by the prosecution.”
Counsel for the State prayed that the appeal be allowed and the matter be remitted to Keroka Principal Magistrate’s Court for re-hearing.
Although Counsels for the parties agreed to canvass this appeal by way of written submissions, only those of Mr. Abobo, Learned Counsel for the respondents were received. It is not clear whether the State abandoned the appeal. Be that as it may as the first appellate court I have, as is my duty, considered and evaluated the evidence in the lower court so as to arrive at my own conclusion. I have done so bearing in mind that I did not have the opportunity of observing the demeanour of the witnesses and given provision for it. I have also considered the submissions of the Learned Counsel for the respondents. I agree with the trial magistrate that the prosecution did not establish a prima facie case against the respondents to warrant them to be put on their defence. Indeed, no reasonable tribunal directing its mind properly would have convicted the respondents on the evidence on record were they to exercise their right to remain silent. The complainants testified that they were pelted with stones by a group of people and could not tell which member of the group threw the stone that hit them. There was no evidence of common intention adduced. The prosecution did not offer any explanation as to why out of 10 assailants they only arrested the respondents. It is likely as submitted by their Counsel, that they were framed because of a land dispute between them and the complainants.
This appeal has no merit. The same is dismissed and the order of the lower court to acquit the respondents under Section 210 of the Criminal Procedure Code is upheld.
It is so ordered.
Signed, dated and delivered in Nyamira this 25th day of October, 2018.
E. N. MAINA
JUDGE