[2017] KEHC 2060 (KLR)

[2017] KEHC 2060 (KLR)

The court found that the convictions of the appellants were unsafe because they were based on confessions whose admissibility was not properly tested. The trial court failed to conduct a trial within a trial to determine whether the confessions were voluntary and admissible, despite objections being raised and the seriousness of the charges. For the unrepresented appellants, the trial court did not inquire whether they objected to the admission of their statements, denying them a fair opportunity to challenge the evidence. The court held that these procedural lapses rendered the convictions unsafe and necessitated the quashing of both the convictions and sentences.

Citation
[2017] KEHC 2060 (KLR)
Parties
Appellant: Paul Mulia Makau; Appellant: Stephen Mwangi Gichimu alias Kirimo; Appellant: Joseph Mwaura Gichohi alias Kainera; Respondent: Republic
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Murang'a
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Judgment Date
10 November 2017
Case Number
Criminal Appeal 121, 132 & 133 of 2014
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Judgment
Outcome
appeal_allowed
Judges
DW Mbuteti
Legal Topics
Admissibility of Confessions, Trial Within Trial, Right to Fair Trial, Robbery With Violence
Source Language
English
Criminal Law Civil Procedure Admissibility of Confessions Trial Within Trial Right to Fair Trial Robbery With Violence

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Paul Mulia Makau

Appellant

Stephen Mwangi Gichimu alias Kirimo

Appellant

Joseph Mwaura Gichohi alias Kainera

Appellant

Republic

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the confessions used to convict the appellants were admissible in law.
  2. 2 Whether the trial court erred by not conducting a trial within a trial on the admissibility of the confessions.
  3. 3 Whether the convictions based on the impugned confessions were safe.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the convictions of the appellants were unsafe because they were based on confessions whose admissibility was not properly tested. The trial court failed to conduct a trial within a trial to determine whether the confessions were voluntary and admissible, despite objections being raised and the seriousness of the charges. For the unrepresented appellants, the trial court did not inquire whether they objected to the admission of their statements, denying them a fair opportunity to challenge the evidence. The court held that these procedural lapses rendered the convictions unsafe and necessitated the quashing of both the convictions and sentences.

Court Disposition

appeal_allowed

Orders

  • The appeals are allowed in their entirety.
  • The convictions of the appellants are quashed.