[2009] KEHC 2653 (KLR)
The court found that although the accused were entitled to a speedy trial as minors under the Children Act and the Constitution, Section 12(4) of the Children Act, which would have mandated their acquittal for delay, had been declared unconstitutional by the Court of Appeal. Furthermore, the court determined that...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2009] KEHC 2653 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Republic; Defendant: Daniel Atem Thon; Defendant: Bul Deng Bui; Defendant: Bol Mark Akuien
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nakuru
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Criminal Case 65 of 2007
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Case / Ruling on Defence Application for Termination of Proceedings and Acquittal
- Outcome
- application for termination and acquittal refused; proceedings to continue
- Judges
- CN Mugo
- Legal Topics
- Right to Speedy Trial, Child Offenders, Delay in Trial, Constitutional Rights
- 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
Daniel Atem Thon
Defendant
Bul Deng Bui
Defendant
Bol Mark Akuien
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Criminal Case / Ruling on Defence Application for Termination of Proceedings and Acquittal
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the accused persons, being minors at the time of the offence, are entitled to acquittal due to delay in concluding the trial beyond one year as per the Children Act.
- 2 Whether Section 12(4) of the Children Act is applicable or has been rendered inoperative by a higher court decision.
- 3 Whether the accused contributed to the delay in the proceedings, thereby disentitling them to the relief sought.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that although the accused were entitled to a speedy trial as minors under the Children Act and the Constitution, Section 12(4) of the Children Act, which would have mandated their acquittal for delay, had been declared unconstitutional by the Court of Appeal. Furthermore, the court determined that the accused themselves contributed to the delay by making and withdrawing bail applications and by offering to plead to a lesser charge, actions which diverted the proceedings and delayed the trial. The court held that the accused could not benefit from a delay they had caused or contributed to. Consequently, the application for termination of proceedings and acquittal was refused.
Court Disposition
application for termination and acquittal refused; proceedings to continue
Orders
- The application to terminate the proceedings and to acquit the accused persons of the charges is refused.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
15 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT NAKURU
CRIMINAL CASE 65 OF 2007
REPUBLIC…..............…………..………………………..PROSECUTOR
VERSUS
1. DANIEL ATEM THON
2. BUL DENG BUI
3. BOL MARK AKUIEN………………………............ACCUSED
RULING
An application has been made by the Defence that this criminal trial against the three accused persons be terminated and they be set at liberty on the grounds that the trial has not been completed within one year since the accused were first arraigned in court. The Provisions of the Children Act (No.8 of 2001) and the Convention on the Rights of the Child have been cited to support the application, which is based on the ground that the three accused persons were minors when the offence with which they were charged was committed on the 13th of July, 2007. They have now attained the age of majority.
Submitting for the three accused defence counsel Mr. Khan stated that is being 17 months since the plea was taken and the trial having not been completed, the accused should be acquitted in accordance with Section 12(4) of the Childrens Act. The State opposes the application with Mr. Njogu, learned State Counsel, submitting that Section 12 (4) of the Childrens Act have been declared ultra vires the constitution by the Court of Appeal.
Submissions by the two sides herein have been duly considered. Whereas this court is alive to the fact that the accused persons herein are no doubt entitled to an expeditious trial and the right to the same accordingly guaranteed under the Constitution and specially provided for under the Childrens’ Act, I do not consider their application worthy of merit. This is because they themselves have, either deliberately or otherwise contributed to the delay in the hearing and disposal of the trial, firstly by making and then withdrawing an application for bail (among other things) in which they raised the same issue now being raised but not pursuing the same the conclusion.
They later made an offer to plead to a lesser charge which offer was considered by the State but found inappropriate in the circumstances. Save for one instance when the court was indisposed this court has been keen to have the trial proceed and be concluded expeditiously in accordance with the law. 6At all times the earliest dates available for hearing were offered to the accused persons who, instead of having the matter set down for hearing elected to pursue an ill advised course twice, hence delaying the proceedings. For the reasons stated, the application to terminate the proceedings and to acquit the accused persons of the charges herein is hereby refused.
DATED, SIGNED and DELIVERED at Nakuru this 11th day of February, 2009.
M. G. MUGO
JUDGE