[2014] KEHC 1916 (KLR)
The court found that the accused had been fully informed of his rights under section 200(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code on multiple occasions and had, with the assistance of counsel, elected not to recall any witnesses, including PW4. The accused was present and represented during the testimony and...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2014] KEHC 1916 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Republic; Respondent: Benson Kuvaka Chumba
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Eldoret
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Criminal Case 18 of 2006
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Case / Ruling on Application to Recall Prosecution Witness After Close of Prosecution Case
- Outcome
- application dismissed
- Judges
- K Kimondo
- Legal Topics
- Recall of Witness, Fair Trial Rights, Cross Examination, Section 200 Criminal Procedure Code
- 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
Benson Kuvaka Chumba
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Criminal Case / Ruling on Application to Recall Prosecution Witness After Close of Prosecution Case
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the accused should be allowed to recall prosecution witness PW4 after the close of the prosecution's case.
- 2 Whether the accused was afforded a fair opportunity to cross-examine PW4 in light of section 200(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code and article 50 of the Constitution.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the accused had been fully informed of his rights under section 200(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code on multiple occasions and had, with the assistance of counsel, elected not to recall any witnesses, including PW4. The accused was present and represented during the testimony and cross-examination of PW4. The application to recall the witness was made only after the prosecution had closed its case, and the court held that allowing the recall at this stage would be unjust, irregular, and detrimental to judicial resources, especially given the protracted history of the case. The accused had been afforded a fair opportunity to cross-examine PW4, and there was no basis...
Court Disposition
application dismissed
Orders
- The application to recall prosecution witness PW4 is dismissed.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
25 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT ELDORET
CRIMINAL CASE NO. 18 OF 2006
REPUBLIC………………………………………….………………….…..PROSECUTOR
-VERSUS-
BENSON KUVAKA CHUMBA…………………………………………………ACCUSED
RULING
The accused has applied to recall prosecution's witness number four (PW4) to the stand. The history of the trial is relevant to the application. This trial opened before Azangalala J (as he then was). The judge took evidence of five prosecution witnesses. The judge then joined the Court of Appeal.
On 19th March 2013 the case was listed before a new judge, Ngenye J. The Court explained to the accused his rights under section 200 (3) of the Criminal Procedure Code (hereinafter the code). The accused elected to proceed with the case from the point at which Azangalala J had left it. His learned counsel, Mr. Koros confirmed that election. The matter was then adjourned.
On 31st March 2014, the case was listed before another judge, Ochieng J. Again the accused elected to proceed with the matter from the point it had reached. Fundamentally, he told the court that he had elected not to recall any witness. The matter was adjourned.
On 7th July 2014, the case was listed before me. Directions under section 200 (3) of the Code having been taken, the sixth witness, PW6, testified. He was cross examined at length by the learned defence counsel. The State indicated it would not call another witness but nevertheless sought an adjournment to 21st July 2014 to allow the learned State Counsel to consult further. On the latter date, the State closed its case without calling any other witness.
The accused then made the present application to recall PW4. The application is predicated on article 50(2)(k) of the Constitution. The accused contends that he failed to cross examine PW 4 on the allegation that PW4 saw him dragging the deceased on the material night; and, that upon perusal of the typed record, some questions posed to that witness were not well captured or at all. The State contests the motion.
Whenever a new judge takes over a case previously heard by his predecessor, he is enjoined by section 200 (3) of the Code to explain to the accused certain rights. Those rights include the liberty to have the matter heard afresh or to recall any witness(es). See Njenga v Republic [1984] KLR 605.
In this case, and on more than two occasions, the accused elected to proceed without recalling any of the five witnesses. He had legal counsel. The matter proceeded and one more witness testified. Since the 19th March 2013 when his rights were first explained to him, the accused has never sought to recall any witness. It is thus surprising that after one more witness and the closure of the prosecution's case, he now makes an about turn and seeks a recall.
The accused is entitled to a fair trial. That is the gravamen of articles 50 and 159 of our Constitution. The accused is facing a grave charge. He is entitled to cross examine all the State witnesses. The accused is presumed innocent; he is also entitled to protection of the law. But granted the history I have highlighted, I find the accused was granted a fair opportunity to cross examine PW4. When PW4 testified, learned counsel was present and conducted cross examination. The accused was also granted an opportunity to recall any witnesses on both the 19th March 2013 and 31st March 2014. He opted not to do so. It would be unjust and irregular to reopen the matter after the prosecution has closed its case. And the recall would not be without its toll on time and judicial resources. Already, this case has been pending in these courts since the year 2006. The witness who is sought to be recalled testified way back on 19th September 2011.
The motion to recall the witness is thus devoid of merit and is dismissed.
It is so ordered.
DATED, SIGNED and DELIVERED at ELDORET this 22nd day of July 2014
GEORGE KANYI KIMONDO
JUDGE
Ruling read in open court in the presence of
The accused.
Mr. Cheserem holding brief for Mr. Koros for the accused.
Ms. Mumu for the State.
Mr. Kemboi, Court Clerk.