[2019] KEHC 1471 (KLR)
The court found that once it issues summonses, they must be obeyed, and failure to comply constitutes prima facie contempt of court. The court emphasized its duty to enforce its orders to maintain the integrity of the justice system. The argument regarding the difference in signatures was dismissed as Mr. Mongeri is...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2019] KEHC 1471 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Republic; Defendant: Jackson Saitiaga Lekutit (Alias Jack); Defendant: Josphat Kaisaiye Lekutit; Defendant: No. 2013054785 APC Vincent Gitonga Kirinya
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Narok
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Criminal Case 11 of 2018
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Case / Ruling on Prosecution's Application for Adjournment and Issuance of Warrants of Arrest for Absent Witnesses
- Outcome
- Adjournment granted; warrants of arrest issued for absent witnesses.
- Legal Topics
- Adjournment of Trial, Witness Summons, Contempt of Court, Court Orders Enforcement
- 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
Jackson Saitiaga Lekutit (Alias Jack)
Defendant
Josphat Kaisaiye Lekutit
Defendant
No. 2013054785 APC Vincent Gitonga Kirinya
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Criminal Case / Ruling on Prosecution's Application for Adjournment and Issuance of Warrants of Arrest for Absent Witnesses
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the prosecution has shown sufficient cause for adjournment due to absence of witnesses.
- 2 Whether the court should issue warrants of arrest for witnesses who failed to attend court as summoned.
- 3 Whether the authenticity of signatures on summonses versus witness statements affects the issuance of warrants.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that once it issues summonses, they must be obeyed, and failure to comply constitutes prima facie contempt of court. The court emphasized its duty to enforce its orders to maintain the integrity of the justice system. The argument regarding the difference in signatures was dismissed as Mr. Mongeri is not a handwriting expert and thus not qualified to make such a determination. The court held that the interests of justice require the witnesses to be brought before the court to explain their absence. Consequently, the court granted the prosecution's application for adjournment and issued warrants of arrest for the absent witnesses.
Court Disposition
Adjournment granted; warrants of arrest issued for absent witnesses.
Orders
- Adjournment of proceedings granted as sought by the prosecution.
- Warrants of arrest to issue for Kool Koroe and Moses Lekutit for failing to attend court as summoned.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
22 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA
AT NAROK
CRIMNAL CASE NO. 11 OF 2018
REPUBLIC...............................................................................PROSECUTOR
VERSUS
JACKSON SAITIAGA LEKUTIT (ALIAS JACK) ..............1ST ACCUSED
JOSPHAT KAISAIYE LEKUTIT ..........................................2ND ACCUSED
NO. 2013054785 APC VINCENT GITONGA KIRINYA.....3RD ACCUSED
RULING
1. I have considered the adjournment sought by the prosecution on the basis that the two witnesses namely Kool Koroe and Moses Lekutit failed to show up in court as required of them by the summonses. She therefore applied for warrants of arrest.
2. Mr. Mongeri for Accused 1 and Accused 2 and also holding brief for Ms Mogere for Accused 3 opposed the application on the basis that the signatures on those summonses and those on their witness statements are different.
3. Secondly, he opposed the application on the basis that the court is being invited to be partisan in the trial, when its duty is to remain neutral and to take evidence only.
4. I reply to that Ms. Nyaroita responded by submitting as follows. The court is not being invited to be partisan but to play its role of wanting to know why the witnesses did not show up.
5. She also replied that Mr. Mongeri is not an expert on signatures and therefore cannot tell whether there are differences between the signatures of the two witnesses on their summonses and those on their witness statements.
6. I find that once a court issues summonses, they must be obeyed. Disobedience to court orders may amount to prima facie contempt of court that is punishable. It is therefore the duty of the court to enforce its orders in respect of those summonses. Failure to do so, will bring the administration of justice into disrepute.
7. Furthermore, it is essential that the witnesses be brought to court to explain their failure to attend court. Furthermore, I have looked at the summonses and I find that they direct the witnesses to attend court and to remain in attendance until they are discharged. It is therefore immaterial that the witnesses were only required to attend court on 9/12/2019 and not 10/12/2019.
8. Furthermore, this is a murder case in which the public and the state have an interest to ascertain whether the offence was committed or not. Additionally, I agree with Ms. Nyaroita that Mr. Mongeri is not a hand writing expert and cannot therefore tell whether the signatures on the summonses are different from those in the statements of the witnesses. I therefore find that the interests of justice demand that the warrants of arrest have to issue in respect of those two witnesses. I therefore grant the adjournment sought.
Ruling dated, signed and delivered in open court at Narok this 10th day of December, 2019 in the presence of all the accused persons, Mr. Mongeri for accused 1 and 2 and also holding brief for Ms. Mogere for accused 3, Mr. Okinyi holding brief for the victims and Ms Nyaroita for the state.
J. M. Bwonwong’a
Judge
10/12/2019