[2014] KEHC 463 (KLR)
The court found that the prosecution could not have reasonably foreseen the accused's alibi defence and that Section 309 of the Criminal Procedure Act expressly provides for the possibility of calling further evidence in such circumstances. The court exercised its discretion to allow the prosecution's application,...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2014] KEHC 463 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Republic; Respondent: Derrel Martin Momanyi alias Abdulatiff
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Malindi
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Criminal Case 27 of 2013
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Case / Ruling on Prosecution's Application to Adduce Further Evidence After Defence Case
- Outcome
- Prosecution's application to adduce further evidence allowed.
- Legal Topics
- Criminal Procedure, Alibi Defence, Rebuttal Evidence
- 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
Derrel Martin Momanyi alias Abdulatiff
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Criminal Case / Ruling on Prosecution's Application to Adduce Further Evidence After Defence Case
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the prosecution should be allowed to adduce further evidence to rebut the alibi defence raised by the accused under Section 309 of the Criminal Procedure Act.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the prosecution could not have reasonably foreseen the accused's alibi defence and that Section 309 of the Criminal Procedure Act expressly provides for the possibility of calling further evidence in such circumstances. The court exercised its discretion to allow the prosecution's application, emphasizing the importance of ascertaining the truth in a murder trial and ensuring both parties have the opportunity to challenge and test the evidence presented.
Court Disposition
Prosecution's application to adduce further evidence allowed.
Orders
- Prosecution is allowed to call further evidence as prayed.
- Prosecutor to serve the defence counsel and the accused with witness statements of the new witnesses within fourteen (14) days.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
18 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT AT MALINDI
CRIMINAL CASE NO. 27 OF 2013
REPUBLIC ….............................................................................. PROSECUTOR
VERSUS
DERREL MARTIN MOMANYI alias ABDULATIF …........................ ACCUSED
RULING
The State closed its case on 15th September, 2014. The accused was put on his defence and he testified on 11th November, 2014. The accused called one more witness his brother who testified as defence witness number two.
The matter was fixed for submissions on 10th December, 2014. However, Mr. Nyongesa, State Counsel, made an oral application under Section 309 of the Criminal Procedure Act seeking to call more evidence to rebut the alibi defence adduced by the accused.
Section 309 of the Criminal Procedure Act states as follows:
“If the accused person adduces evidence in his defence introducing new matter which the advocate for the prosecution could not by the exercise of reasonable diligence have foreseen, the court may allow the advocate for the prosecution to adduce evidence in reply to rebut it.”
The main considerations for the court under Section 309 is whether the accused's evidence introduced new matter which could not be foreseen by the prosecution. The Section gives the court the discretion to allow the prosecution to adduce more evidence to rebutt it. Mr. Nyongesa contends that he wishes to challenge the alibi defence.
The intention of any criminal process is to know the truth. This is a murder case. The prosecution called seven witnesses and closed its case. It is clear to me that the prosecution did not expect the accused to adduce the defence of alibi. Under Section 309 it is indicated that the court may all move evidence by the prosecution if the prosecutor could not through the exercise of due diligence have foreseen the issues or matter brought by the accused.
In view of the the nature of the offence, I do find that the request by the prosecution is not unreasonable. The possibility of calling for further evidence is provided for under Section 309 of the Criminal Procedure Act. I do allow the Prosecution's request to call for more evidence as prayed. The accused, through his counsel, will be able to cross-examine the witnesses and challenge their evidence.
In the end, the prosecution's application under Section 309 of the Criminal Procedure Act is allowed. The prosecutor to serve the defence counsel and the accused with the witness statements of the new witnesses the prosecution wishes to call. This should be done within fourteen (14) days hereof.
Delivered and dated this 17th day of December, 2014 in the presence of:
Said J. Chitembwe
JUDGE