[2010] KEHC 2307 (KLR)
The court found that although the applicant was not brought before court within the constitutionally mandated 14 days, the police provided a reasonable and credible explanation for the delay. The court recognized that logistical challenges, such as lack of secretarial staff, the need for further investigations, and...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2010] KEHC 2307 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Republic; Respondent: Kennedy Otieno Oyanga alias Anyona
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Kisii
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Criminal Case 44 of 2006
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Case / Ruling on Constitutional Application After Close of Prosecution Case
- Outcome
- application dismissed
- Judges
- DK Musinga
- Legal Topics
- Pre Trial Detention, Right to Be Brought to Court, Murder Charge, Investigative Delay
- 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
Kennedy Otieno Oyanga alias Anyona
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Criminal Case / Ruling on Constitutional Application After Close of Prosecution Case
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the applicant's constitutional right to be brought before court within 14 days of arrest was violated.
- 2 Whether the explanation provided by the police for the delay in arraigning the applicant was reasonable.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that although the applicant was not brought before court within the constitutionally mandated 14 days, the police provided a reasonable and credible explanation for the delay. The court recognized that logistical challenges, such as lack of secretarial staff, the need for further investigations, and the requirement for mental assessment, contributed to the delay. The court held that where the police demonstrate that they acted diligently and the delay was due to circumstances beyond their control, the constitutional right is not violated. Therefore, the applicant's claim of violation of his constitutional right was dismissed, and he was ordered to proceed with his defence...
Court Disposition
application dismissed
Orders
- The applicant's constitutional application is dismissed.
- The applicant shall proceed to tender his defence to the charge of murder.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
42 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA
OF KISII
Criminal Case 44 of 2006
REPUBLIC ………………………………………… PROSECUTOR
VERSUS
KENNEDY OTIENO OYANGAalias ANYONA ……. ACCUSED
RULING
The applicant was charged with murder contrary tosection 203as read withsection 204of thePenal Code.The particulars of the offence were that on the 7th day of July 2006 in South Kabuoch Location of Homa Bay District withinNyanzaProvincejointly with others not before court, he murderedOure Obondo Rakiro.
The trial commenced and the prosecution closed its case on3rd December 2009. The court, upon perusal of the evidence tendered by prosecution witnesses, was satisfied that a prima facie case had been established against him.He was therefore placed on his defence.Before he tendered his defence, the applicant filed a constitutional application alleging that his constitutional rights had been violated because he was arrested on6th September 2006and kept in police custody until25th November 2006when he was taken to court.
In his affidavit in support of the application, the applicant deposed that all the statements recorded by the police in the course of the investigations as well as the post mortem report of the deceased were ready as at the 18th day of September 2006 and therefore the police deliberately kept him in unlawful custody unnecessarily.
In response to the said application, Police Constable Peter Gachie of Ndhiwa police station filed a replying affidavit and stated as follows
·The petitioner was arrested on6th September 2006following a complaint made to the station on8th July 2006.
·The investigating officer visited the scene of the crime, recorded witness statements but the applicant was not arrested at the time because he was at large.
·The OCS Ndhiwa collected the applicant from Awendo police station which is 50 kilometres away from Ndhiwa on
10th September 2006.
·The file was forwarded to the
DCIOHomaBayfor onward transmission to the Attorney-General’s chambers on21st September 2006.
·That the DCIO was not satisfied with the investigations carried out and directed that witness statements be properly marked and that the P3 form be included in the file before it was forwarded to the Attorney-General’s office.
·That the applicant was escorted to
HomaBayDistrictHospitalon3rd October 2006whereupon the file was re-submitted to theDCIOHomaBayfor transmission to the Attorney-General.
·That the file was forwarded to the Attorney-General’s office on
11th October 2006and was returned to theDCIOHomaBayon20th November 2006with instructions to charge the applicant with murder.
·That the applicant was arraigned in court on
26th November 2006.
·That there was delay in typing witness statements because there is no secretary at Ndhiwa police station and all the typing is done by police officers who are not trained in typing, as a result they take a long time to type documents.
·That Ndhiwa police station is far from
HomaBaywhere the applicant had to be taken for mental assessment and there is only one vehicle available for Ndhiwa which covers a wide area.
It is not in dispute that the applicant was not arraigned in court within 14 days of his arrest.Under the provisions ofsection 72 (3) (b)of theConstitution, the applicant was supposed to be produced before court within 14 days of his arrest or soon as practicable.
The police have given an explanation regarding the delay in arraigning the applicant before court.In my view, the explanation given is reasonable.It must be appreciated that there are many factors that may force the police to be unable to beat the constitutional deadline in arraigning suspects in court.Whereas the courts cannot condone unexplained delay on the part of the police, where it is demonstrated that the police did their best in the circumstances, a court should be slow in granting an application as the present one.Murder cases require very elaborate investigative procedures before a file can be submitted to the Attorney-General for advice and thereafter to court.In this case, the police did their best within the prevailing circumstances.
Consequently, I hold that there was no violation of the applicant’s constitutional right as claimed in his application which I hereby dismiss.The applicant should proceed to tender his defence to the charge of murder.
DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED AT KISII THIS 11TH DAY OF MARCH, 2010.
D. MUSINGA
JUDGE.
11/3/2010
Before D. Musinga, J.
Mobisa – cc
Mr. Mutai for the state
Mr. Otieno for the accused
Court:Ruling delivered in open court on11th March, 2010.
D. MUSINGA
JUDGE.