[2002] KEHC 332 (KLR)
The court found that the accused's claim of illiteracy was not credible, as he was able to read and recite a police force number written on his palm. The court was not convinced by the accused's allegations of assault and coercion, noting inconsistencies in his account and the lack of corroboration. The evidence...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2002] KEHC 332 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Republic; Defendant: Mbuvi Wambua
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Machakos
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Criminal Case 13 of ??
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Case / Trial Within a Trial Ruling on Admissibility of Confession
- Outcome
- statement admitted as evidence
- Legal Topics
- Admissibility of Confessions, Voluntariness of Statements, Police Procedure, Evidence Law
- 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
Mbuvi Wambua
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Criminal Case / Trial Within a Trial Ruling on Admissibility of Confession
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the accused's statement to the investigating officer was made voluntarily and is admissible in evidence.
- 2 Whether the accused was coerced, assaulted, or threatened into making or signing the statement.
- 3 Whether the accused was literate and capable of understanding and signing the statement.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the accused's claim of illiteracy was not credible, as he was able to read and recite a police force number written on his palm. The court was not convinced by the accused's allegations of assault and coercion, noting inconsistencies in his account and the lack of corroboration. The evidence from IP Githui and Pc. Mukira was preferred, establishing that the accused voluntarily gave and signed the statement. The court concluded that the statement was made freely, voluntarily, and with full understanding, and thus is admissible in evidence.
Court Disposition
statement admitted as evidence
Orders
- The statement made by the accused to IP Githui is admissible and may be produced in evidence.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
20 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT MACHAKOS
CRIMINAL CASE NO. 13 OF 2000
REPUBLIC ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: PROSECUTOR
VERSUS
MBUVI WAMBUA :::::::::::::::::::::::::: ACCUSED
R U L I N G
The accused herein denied a statement that he allegedly gave to IP Githui when he was investigating the murder of Munyithya 10 Muthusi herein. It necessitated a trial within-a-trial. IP Githui said that the accused requested to see him and when he was brought, he offered to say all he knew about the death of Munyithya. That IP Githui cautioned him that if he said anything in connection with that murder, he IP Githui, would reduce it into writing and would produce it in evidence. That the accused who was among other suspects in the subject case, on his own dictated in Kiswahili what IP Githui recorded. In the statement apparently he admitted the offence.
The court heard that Pc. Mukira (P.W.3) brought in the accused and that he did not stay in the office when for a bout an hour the accused told IP Gthui about the murder.
IP Githui said that he was not armed and neither was Pc Mukira at the time the latter brought the accused. Pc. Mukira on his part while he said that he was armed, said that he did not know if IP Githui was. And while IP Githui said that he called Pc. Mukura to return the suspect to the cells, Pc Mukira said that IP Githui himself escorted 10 the accused back. On his own part the accused claimed that Pc. Mukira took him back into the cells.
While IP Githui told the court that the accused seemed to understand Kiswahili well, even when he did not inquire after his academic level, the accused maintained that he was illiterate all the way.
IP Githui went through the motions to demonstrate that the statement he took from the accused was voluntary. 20
On his part the accused said that he was escorted from the cells by P.C. Mukira who hit him with a gun and kicked him, to the office of IP Githui. That it was IP Githui who called for him. By this the accused seemed to want to contradict IP Githui and Pc Mukira that it was the accused, who on his own, requested to see IP Githui.
The accused said that not only was he assaulted and harassed as Pc. Mukira led him to the office of the O.C.S. (IP Githui) but that once there three officers – IP Githui, Pc Mukira another whose force 10 number the accused read from his palm as 51820 proceeded to threaten him. (The number 51820 turns out to belong to Pc. Mukira!) The accused continued that as IP Muthui directed him to sign documents on his table or he could be killed, the two other officers proceeded to prick him with sharp pins on the fingers of his, the accused’s, hands. He denied that he did sign the statement that IP Githui was about to produce. That if anything he could have thumbprinted it.
In cross examination the accused who maintained that he was 20 totally illiterate (could not read or write) was at pains to explain who wrote for him the force No. 51820 on his palm which he even read to the court.
At the end of the day the court was not convinced that the accused did not sign the statement that IP Githui took from him. He signed it and he could read and write. He was not forced to sign it either.The court was left with the view that the accused gave a voluntary statement to IP Githui which was recorded. 10
That statement may be produced in evidence.
Delivered on 30. 4.2002.
J. W. MWERA
JUDGE