[2009] KEHC 2038 (KLR)

[2009] KEHC 2038 (KLR)

The court found that the state provided a reasonable explanation for the delay in bringing the accused to court. The delay was occasioned by the hospitalization of witnesses (who could not give statements), the inability of the deceased's family to pay for the post mortem (which was necessary for the case to proceed), and the need to assess the accused's mental condition. The court accepted that these circumstances made it reasonably practicable to bring the accused to court only after these issues were resolved. Therefore, the accused's constitutional rights under section 72(3)(b) were not violated, and the objection to the trial was dismissed.

Citation
[2009] KEHC 2038 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: Republic; Defendant: Benjamin Gitonga
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Meru
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Judgment Date
2 October 2009
Case Number
Criminal Case 65 of 2006
Procedural Posture
Criminal Case / Ruling on Constitutional Objection Prior to Trial
Outcome
objection dismissed; trial to proceed
Judges
MM Kasango
Legal Topics
Pre Trial Detention, Right to Be Brought Before Court, Murder Charge, Constitutional Rights Violation
Source Language
English
Criminal Law Constitutional Law Pre Trial Detention Right to Be Brought Before Court Murder Charge Constitutional Rights Violation

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
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Republic

Applicant

Benjamin Gitonga

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Criminal Case / Ruling on Constitutional Objection Prior to Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the accused's constitutional right under section 72(3)(b) of the Constitution was violated by being held in custody for almost two months before being brought to court.
  2. 2 Whether the explanation provided by the state for the delay in bringing the accused to court was reasonable and justified under the law.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the state provided a reasonable explanation for the delay in bringing the accused to court. The delay was occasioned by the hospitalization of witnesses (who could not give statements), the inability of the deceased's family to pay for the post mortem (which was necessary for the case to proceed), and the need to assess the accused's mental condition. The court accepted that these circumstances made it reasonably practicable to bring the accused to court only after these issues were resolved. Therefore, the accused's constitutional rights under section 72(3)(b) were not violated, and the objection to the trial was dismissed.

Court Disposition

objection dismissed; trial to proceed

Orders

  • The objection raised by the accused is dismissed.
  • The accused's trial will proceed.