https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/11354
The prosecution failed to prove that Fatiha Hashim Mohamed was dead, which was a prerequisite for allowing production of her statement and P3 form through PW2. In addition, the P3 form had not been disclosed to the defence, and admitting it would prejudice the accused and violate Article 50(2). The application was...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2026] KEHC 11354 (KLR)
- Parties
- Prosecution: REPUBLIC; Respondent: MUDHAFAR OMAR
- Court
- High Court
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Criminal Case E014 of 2021
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Case / Ruling on Prosecution Application to Produce Witness Statement and P3 Form
- Outcome
- Application declined
- Judges
- ["M Thande"]
- Legal Topics
- Production of Documentary Evidence, Burden of Proof, Proof of Death of Witness, Disclosure to Defence, Fair Trial 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
Prosecution
MUDHAFAR OMAR
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Criminal Case / Ruling on Prosecution Application to Produce Witness Statement and P3 Form
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether PW2 could be allowed to produce the deceased witness’s statement and P3 form
- 2 Whether the prosecution proved that Fatiha Hashim Mohamed was dead
- 3 Whether production of the P3 form without prior disclosure to the defence would prejudice the accused and violate Article 50
Ratio Decidendi
The prosecution failed to prove that Fatiha Hashim Mohamed was dead, which was a prerequisite for allowing production of her statement and P3 form through PW2. In addition, the P3 form had not been disclosed to the defence, and admitting it would prejudice the accused and violate Article 50(2). The application was therefore declined.
Court Disposition
Application declined
Orders
- PW2 was not allowed to produce Fatiha Hashim Mohamed’s witness statement dated 12.5.21 or her P3 form dated 29.6.21.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
**REPUBLIC OF KENYA** **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT MALINDI** **CRIMINAL CASE NO. E014 OF 2021** **REPUBLIC**.**…..……………….......……………………..………………………..PROSECUTION** **VERSUS** **MUDHAFAR OMAR ……..…...…..…………….......………………………..…..RESPONDENT** **RULING** 1. The issue before the Court for determination is the Application by the prosecution that PW2 No. 61707 Sgt. Peter Ndegwa be allowed to produce a witness statement by Fatiha Hashim Mohamed made on 12.5.21 as well as her P3 form dated 29.6.21. PW2 stated that Fatiha died before she testified. 2. The Prosecution stated that the 2 documents are crucial as they speak to circumstances in which the deceased and Fatiha were attacked resulting in the demise of the deceased. Further, that the statement and the P3 form were respectively recorded and obtained by PW2 in the ordinary course of duty as the investigating officer. 3. The Application is opposed by the defence counsel who contends that no evidence has been produced to show that Fatiha is dead. Further, that the P3 form was not supplied to the defence and production of the same would violate Article 50 of the Constitution. 4. The reason given by the prosecution that PW2 be allowed to produce Fatiha’s statement and P3 form is that she is now deceased. 5. It is trite that he who alleges must prove. The Evidence Act is very clear in this regard. Section 107 stipulates: 6. ***Whoever desires any court to give judgment as to any legal right or liability dependent on the existence of facts which he asserts must prove that those facts exist.*** 7. ***When a person is bound to prove the existence of any fact it is said that the burden of proof lies on that person.*** 8. For the Court to allow the production of these documents, it must first be proved that Fatiha is indeed dead. The prosecution has not demonstrated with evidence that Fatiha is dead. The prosecution has thus failed to discharge the burden of proof placed upon it by law. 9. Even if there was any evidence of her death, and there is none, such evidence has not been supplied to the defence. Similarly, the P3 form has not been supplied to the defence. 10. To allow the production of the P3 form without if first being supplied to the defence will occasion prejudice to the accused. It will further violate the provisions of Article 50(2) of the Constitution which guarantees to the accused, the right to a fair trial. This right includes the right to have adequate time and facilities to prepare a defence as well as to be informed in advance of the evidence the prosecution intends to rely on, and to have reasonable access to that evidence. 11. In the premises, the Application by the prosecution is declined. **DATED and DELIVERED in MALINDI this 21st day of July 2026** **\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_** **M. THANDE** **JUDGE**