[2024] KEHC 12938 (KLR)
The court found that since the accused had challenged the voluntariness and procedural propriety of the confession statement—citing lack of proper interpretation, failure to follow confession rules, and alleged unfitness at the time of recording—the only prudent course was to conduct a trial within a trial. This...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2024] KEHC 12938 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Republic; Defendant: Mohamed Abdullahi Noor
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Garissa
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Criminal Case E011 of 2023
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Case / Ruling on Admissibility of Confession (trial Within a Trial Ordered)
- Outcome
- Trial within a trial ordered to determine admissibility of confession statement.
- Judges
- JN Onyiego
- Legal Topics
- Murder Charge, Admissibility of Confession, Confession Rules, Interpretation 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
Applicant
Mohamed Abdullahi Noor
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Criminal Case / Ruling on Admissibility of Confession (trial Within a Trial Ordered)
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the accused's confession statement is admissible in evidence given the alleged procedural irregularities.
- 2 Whether the accused was properly cautioned and accorded interpretation as required by law before making the confession.
- 3 Whether the accused was medically and mentally fit to make a voluntary confession.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that since the accused had challenged the voluntariness and procedural propriety of the confession statement—citing lack of proper interpretation, failure to follow confession rules, and alleged unfitness at the time of recording—the only prudent course was to conduct a trial within a trial. This would allow the court to interrogate the circumstances under which the confession was made and determine its admissibility in accordance with the Evidence Act, the Confession Rules 2009, and constitutional safeguards. The court emphasized that a confession cannot be admitted where there is a credible challenge to its voluntariness or procedural compliance without first conducting...
Court Disposition
Trial within a trial ordered to determine admissibility of confession statement.
Orders
- PW8 is stepped down to allow the court to conduct a trial within a trial.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
23 paragraphs
Republic v Noor (Criminal Case E011 of 2023) [2024] KEHC 12938 (KLR) (24 October 2024) (Ruling)
Neutral citation: [2024] KEHC 12938 (KLR)
Republic of Kenya
In the High Court at Garissa
Criminal Case E011 of 2023
JN Onyiego, J
October 24, 2024
Between
Republic
Prosecutor
and
Mohamed Abdullahi Noor
Accused
Ruling
1. Accused herein is charged with the offence of murder contrary to section 203 as read out with section 204 of the penal code. Having pleaded not guilty, the matter proceeded to full trial. When time for pw8 CIP Vincent Ondoro Barno came to testify, he told the court how the accused person made a confession that he was the one who killed the deceased. That the confession was voluntarily taken without any promise, undue influence nor intimidation in the presence of one Shina a relative of the accused.
2. When the witness attempted to produce the statement, Mr. Bosire for the accused vehemently opposed production of the same arguing that the officer did not explain nor display the confession rules to the accused. He contended that, the accused was not accorded an interpreter as he did not understand neither English nor Kiswahili. Mr. Bosire took issue with the purported interpreter’s failure to sign the interpretation certificate.
3. Secondly, Mr. Bosire took issue with the witnesses’ statement that the accused appeared confused when he appeared before him implying that the accused was not fit at the time capable of recording a statement.
4. On his part, Mr. Okemwa for the prosecution opposed the application. He stated that the accused was properly cautioned before recording his statement admitting the offence. Counsel submitted that it was the accused’s sister who offered to be an interpreter after signing that she was ready to interpret. Counsel contended that accused was medically fit when recording the statement.
5. I have considered the objection herein and the response thereof. I have also considered the oral submissions by both parties. The law governing taking of confessions is substantively provided under section 25A of the evidence Act and rules of confession of 2009. Under Section 25A, a confession is only admissible if taken before a judge, magistrate or a police officer of the rank of a chief inspector and above.
6. The 2009 confession rules a foresaid does provide the procedure or the requisite steps a recording officer ought to follow before extracting a confession. Most importantly, Section 26 of the evidence Act and rule 4 provide that a confession must be extracted voluntarily without any threat, duress, torture, promise or influence of any kind. Besides, Article 49(1)(d) of the constitution provides that nobody is to be compelled to make a confession nor admission.
7. The accused having repudiated the statement on account that; rules of procedure were not followed; he was not accorded proper interpretation in the language he understands and that he was not feeling well at the time of recording the statement, it will be proper for the court to interrogate the repudiated statement. See Sango Mohamed Sango& another vs Republic (2015) eKLR where the court cautioned against atrial court proceeding to admit a repudiated confession or statement.
8. Accused having challenged the statement, the only prudent thing to do is to conduct atrial within atrial to ascertain whether the alleged confession was properly taken. Accordingly, pw8 is stepped down to allow the court conduct a trial within a trial.
DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED VIRTUALLY THIS 24TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2024J. N. ONYIEGOJUDGE