[2018] KEHC 9956 (KLR)
The court found that, although the prosecution's conduct was not exemplary, the broader interests of justice in a serious charge under the Sexual Offences Act required that the prosecution be allowed to call its remaining witness, the doctor. The court emphasized that justice must not only be done but be seen to be...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2018] KEHC 9956 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Republic; Respondent: BOS
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Criminal Revision 479 of 2017
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Revision / Ruling on Application to Set Aside Order Closing Prosecution's Case
- Outcome
- Application allowed; order closing prosecution's case set aside.
- Judges
- LK Kimaru
- Legal Topics
- Criminal Procedure, Sexual Offences, Prosecution Case Closure, Adjournment of Hearing
- 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
BOS
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Criminal Revision / Ruling on Application to Set Aside Order Closing Prosecution's Case
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the trial court erred in closing the prosecution's case before the doctor testified.
- 2 Whether the prosecution was denied a fair opportunity to present its evidence.
- 3 Whether the interests of justice require setting aside the order closing the prosecution's case.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that, although the prosecution's conduct was not exemplary, the broader interests of justice in a serious charge under the Sexual Offences Act required that the prosecution be allowed to call its remaining witness, the doctor. The court emphasized that justice must not only be done but be seen to be done, and that denying the prosecution the opportunity to present crucial medical evidence would undermine the integrity of the trial process. Accordingly, the order closing the prosecution's case was set aside to allow the doctor to testify.
Court Disposition
Application allowed; order closing prosecution's case set aside.
Orders
- The order issued by the trial court on 19th September 2017 closing the prosecution's case is set aside.
- The prosecution shall call the doctor on the date fixed by the trial court.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
15 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT NAIROBI
CRIMINAL DIVISION
CRIMINAL REVISION NO.479 OF 2017
REPUBLIC......APPLICANT
VERSUS
BOS................RESPONDENT
RULING
The prosecution was aggrieved by the decision of the trial court made in Nairobi Children’s Court Criminal Case No.325 of 2016 Republic –versus- Billy Ochieng Seda wherein the trial court ordered the prosecution to close its case before the doctor had testified. The charges facing the Respondent are under the Sexual Offences Act. According to Mr. Momanyi, Learned Prosecuting Counsel, the prosecution did not fail to produce the doctor on account of indolence or laxity. He pointed out that since the commencement of trial, the trial was adjourned several times and in most cases not at the instance of the prosecution. He submitted that the trial court failed to take into consideration the antecedents of the parties’ conduct and the trial court itself when it declined to grant the prosecution’s application for an adjournment to enable it call the doctor give his testimony in the case. Mr. Momanyi urged the court to take into consideration the broader interest of justice and allow its application to set aside the trial court’s order closing the prosecution’s case and allow it to call the doctor to testify in the trial.
The Respondent objected to the application. The Respondents’ counsel Mr. Ongoro submitted that the Respondent’s interests who are minors should be taken into consideration. On the day the trial court closed the prosecution’s case, the prosecution had indicated to the court that the doctor was available to testify in the case. However, even after the case was called for a second time, the doctor was not in court. He submitted that the case had failed to take off on several occasions due to the prosecution’s lack of diligence in producing witnesses in court on the days the hearing has been scheduled. Learned counsel explained that the decision rendered by the trial court was justified in the circumstances since the prosecution’s lack of seriousness in prosecuting the case could not be a basis for the continued delay of the hearing and conclusion of the trial. He urged the court to dismiss the application.
This court has considered the rival submission made by the parties to this application. This court has jurisdiction under Section 362of the Criminal Procedure Codeto revise a decision where there is an irregularity or illegality. In the present application, it was evident that for the broader interest of justice, the application must be allowed. The Respondents are facing a serious charge under the Sexual Offences Act. The victims of the alleged crime must also feel that justice was not only done but was seen to be done. The prosecution has indicated that it is willing to produce the doctor to produce the medical evidence in support of the prosecution’s case. Although this court noted that the prosecution counsel’s conduct in the case may not have been what was expected of it, this court cannot lose sight of the fact that the interest of justice in this particular case demands that the remaining witness be allowed to give his testimony.
In the premises therefore, the order issued by the trial court on 19th September 2017 closing the prosecution’s case is hereby set aside. The prosecution shall call the doctor on the date that the hearing date shall be fixed by the trial court. The Children’s Court file is ordered returned to the court for hearing and conclusion of the trial. It is so ordered.
DATED AT NAIROBI THIS 4TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2018
L. KIMARU
JUDGE