[2009] KEHC 2983 (KLR)
The court found that the information before it was properly drawn in accordance with the law and that the objections raised by the defence were premature, speculative, and without merit. The issues regarding the number of accused, the place of commission, and the cause of death are matters to be determined by...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2009] KEHC 2983 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Republic; Respondent: Anthony Muriithi Regero; Respondent: 2 Others (A2 and A3)
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Criminal Case 40 of 2009
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Case / Ruling on Preliminary Objections
- Outcome
- Objections dismissed; matter to proceed to hearing.
- Judges
- A. Ong’injo
- Legal Topics
- Objection to Information, Formal Defects in Charge, Joinder of Accused Persons, Place of Offence, Cause of Death
- 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
Republic
Applicant
Anthony Muriithi Regero
Respondent
2 Others (A2 and A3)
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Criminal Case / Ruling on Preliminary Objections
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the objections raised under Section 275 of the Criminal Procedure Code regarding formal defects in the information are valid.
- 2 Whether the number of accused persons, the place of commission of the offence, and the cause of death are grounds for objection at this stage.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the information before it was properly drawn in accordance with the law and that the objections raised by the defence were premature, speculative, and without merit. The issues regarding the number of accused, the place of commission, and the cause of death are matters to be determined by evidence during the trial. The State retains the discretion to decide whom to prosecute based on the evidence available. Any contradictions or variances in evidence can be addressed by the defence at the appropriate stage during trial. Accordingly, the objections were dismissed as lacking merit.
Court Disposition
Objections dismissed; matter to proceed to hearing.
Orders
- The objections raised by the defence are dismissed as lacking merit.
- The case is set for hearing on 22nd and 23rd June, 2009.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
25 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT NAIROBI (NAIROBI LAW COURTS)
Criminal Case 40 of 2009
REPUBLIC...................................................................................APPLICANT
-VS
ANTHONY MURIITHI REGERO & 2 OTHERS..............RESPONDENT
RULING
This ruling relates to the objections made by Mr. Mungai Kibe under Sec. 275 of the CPC, Cap. 75, Laws of Kenya. The said section reads as follow;
“Every objection to an information for a formal defect on the face thereof shall be taken immediately after the information been read over to the accused person and not later.”
Apart from the above, the learned Counsel also complained
(a)about the number of persons who have been charged
(b) the place where the alleged offence was committed
(c) and the cause of death
On the other hand, Mr. Gikonyo, State Counsel has opposed the application on the grounds that the State has complied with all the requirements of drafting the information.
This court has carefully considered the above relevant section together the concerns raised on (a), (b) and (c). Having done so, I am satisfied that the information before the court has been drawn properly in accordance with the law. Apart from the above, the State is at liberty to decide on the number of suspects to prosecute in relation to any offence. That will definitely be guided by the evidence available to the State. Besides the above, the place of commission of an offence depends on the evidence that will be adduced in court. In the event of any variance with the information, then the defence Counsel will be at liberty to make appropriate submissions. As far as the cause of death is concerned, it is upon the doctor who conducted the post-mortem to adduce the relevant evidence. In the event of any contradictions, then the defence counsel will be given an opportunity to make appropriate submissions. Basically the objections by the defence Counsel are premature, without any basis and makes presumptions on evidence that has not been adduced in court. In view of the above, I hereby dismiss the objections raised since they do not have any merit. Those are the orders of the Court.
MUGA APONDI
JUDGE
Ruling read signed and delivered in open court in the presence of Gatonye and Wandugi and Marete for A1, Naikuni for A2 and Mwangi for Gikonyo for Kibe Mungai for A3;
MUGA APONDI
JUDGE
5TH MAY, 2009
Court:
Hearing on 22nd & 23rd June, 2009. Accused remanded in custody.
MUGA APONDI
JUDGE
5TH MAY, 2009