[2010] KEHC 2821 (KLR)
The court found that while there was a delay of 171 days before the accused was arraigned in court, the reasons provided by the prosecution—including the absence of the only available doctor for mental examination, the need to trace a key witness, and the disruption caused by post-election violence—were reasonable...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2010] KEHC 2821 (KLR)
- Parties
- Respondent: Republic; Applicant: Cornelius Kipkosgey Kogo
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Eldoret
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Criminal Case 2 of 2008
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Case / Ruling on Preliminary Objection Regarding Constitutional Rights Violation Due to Pre Trial Delay
- Outcome
- preliminary objection dismissed; accused to stand trial
- Legal Topics
- Pre Trial Detention, Right to Fair Trial, Unreasonable Delay, Murder Charge
- 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
Respondent
Cornelius Kipkosgey Kogo
Applicant
Procedural Posture
Criminal Case / Ruling on Preliminary Objection Regarding Constitutional Rights Violation Due to Pre Trial Delay
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the delay of 171 days before arraignment violated the accused's constitutional rights to liberty and fair trial.
- 2 Whether the reasons provided by the prosecution for the delay were reasonable and justified.
- 3 Whether a breach of constitutional rights, if found, would entitle the accused to an automatic acquittal.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that while there was a delay of 171 days before the accused was arraigned in court, the reasons provided by the prosecution—including the absence of the only available doctor for mental examination, the need to trace a key witness, and the disruption caused by post-election violence—were reasonable and justified under the circumstances. The court held that it would not have served any useful purpose to charge the accused before his mental status was established, and there was no evidence that the prosecution deliberately caused the delay. Furthermore, even if a breach of constitutional rights had occurred, it would not automatically result in the accused's acquittal. The...
Court Disposition
preliminary objection dismissed; accused to stand trial
Orders
- The preliminary objection is dismissed.
- The accused shall stand trial for the murder of the deceased.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
21 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA
AT ELDORET
Criminal Case 2 of 2008
REPUBLIC:………………………..……….PROSECUTOR
VERSUS
CORNELIUS KIPKOSGEY KOGO:………….ACCUSED
R U L I N G
CORNELIUS KIPKOSGEI KOGOfaces the charge of having murdered JULIUS KIPRUTOH LELEI on the 19th August 2007 contrary to section 203 as read with section 204 of the Penal Code.He has filed an application under Sections 72(1), 72(3) 77(1) of the Constitution of Kenya as read with Rule 23 of the Constitution (Supevisory and Protection of Fundamental Rights) on the 25th August 2007 when he himself surrendered to the police but he was not arraigned in court until the 21st February 2008 for purposes of taking plea, a period of 171 days or six months which time he says was too long and unreasonable delay and thereby his rights to liberty and fair trial were breached and so any intended prosecution would be a miscarriage of justice as the trial is founded on a nullity.He contents that his continuing detention is a further violation of his constitutional rights.
The investigating officer in the case one Wilson Kipkemei Sambu a police officer stationed at Songhor Crime Section has sworn an affidavit explaining the delay.He states that the postmortem on the body of the deceased was performed on the date the accused was arrested but that the mental examination on the accused to determined whether or not he was fit to answer to the charges of murder was delayed because the only Doctor at Nandi Hills District Hospital who could undertake the said examination was away attending some training and he was not examined until 31st October 2007. The file was then sent to the D.C.I.O on 2nd November 2007 who advised that the statement of a very key witness must be recorded but the witness was not traced until 25th November 2007 when she recorded her statement.That the file was received from the state counsel for purposes of charging the Applicant herein on 29th December 2007 but by that time post election violence had erupted and there was a lot of insecurity and it was not possible to bring the accused to court until 21st February 2008.
The state concedes the delay but states that the reasons given for the delay are reasonable and so the Preliminary Objection should not be withheld.
I find that the accused was first brought to court on the 11th of February 2008 but could not take plea as an advocate had to be appointed for him as he faced a capital offence.He finally took plea on 26th February 2008. The issue for the court to determine is whether the reasons given for the delay are acceptable.It would not have served any useful purpose for the prosecution to charge the accused with murder before his mental status was established.It is not alleged that the doctor who was to perform this mental examination on the accused person decided to go for training well knowing that the accused person was to be brought to the hospital for the mental examination.There was no other doctor to examine the accused.And all relevant evidence had to be collected in a bid to sustain a charge of murder.In the circumstances leading to the delay herein and considering that the prosecution did not occasion the post election violence.I find that it is not sound to uphold the Preliminary Objection.Even if I were to find, which I do not find, that a breach of the constitutional rights of the accused herein was occasioned, his automatic acquittal does not result from such breach.The law cuts both ways.The accused shall stand trial for the murder of the deceased herein and if there is not enough evidence to sustain a conviction then he will be acquitted at that stage.In the end this Preliminary Objection is found to be without merit and it is accordingly dismissed.
Orders accordingly.
DATED SIGNED AND DELIVERED AT ELDORET THIS 13TH DAY OF MAY 2010
P.M.MWILU
JUDGE
IN THE PRESENCE OF:-
Andrew Omwenga-Court clerk
Mr. Misoi-Advocate for the Applicant
Present-Accused
Mr. Chirchir-Advocate for state.