[2016] KEHC 1829 (KLR)
The court found that the prosecution had established a prima facie case regarding the admissibility of the confession statements by the 1st and 2nd accused. The testimonies of the arresting officer, investigating officer, and recording officer indicated that the accused were cautioned and informed of their rights...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2016] KEHC 1829 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Republic; Defendant: Priscilla Cherono Chebet; Defendant: Emmy Jepkosgey Chumo; Defendant: Josephine Chelel
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Commercial Courts)
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Criminal Case 65 of 2011
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Case / Trial Within Trial on Admissibility of Confession Statements
- Outcome
- Prosecution has made out a prima facie case; 1st and 2nd accused to be put on their defence in the trial within trial.
- Legal Topics
- Confession Statements, Admissibility of Evidence, Trial Within Trial
- 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
Priscilla Cherono Chebet
Defendant
Emmy Jepkosgey Chumo
Defendant
Josephine Chelel
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Criminal Case / Trial Within Trial on Admissibility of Confession Statements
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the confession statements by the 1st and 2nd accused are admissible in evidence.
- 2 Whether the prosecution complied with the legal requirements for recording confessions.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the prosecution had established a prima facie case regarding the admissibility of the confession statements by the 1st and 2nd accused. The testimonies of the arresting officer, investigating officer, and recording officer indicated that the accused were cautioned and informed of their rights before making the statements, and that the statements were signed voluntarily. The defence's objections did not sufficiently demonstrate breaches of the rules that would render the statements inadmissible at this stage. Consequently, the court ruled that the 1st and 2nd accused should be put on their defence in the trial within trial to further test the admissibility of the...
Court Disposition
Prosecution has made out a prima facie case; 1st and 2nd accused to be put on their defence in the trial within trial.
Orders
- The 1st and 2nd accused are to be put on their defence in the trial within trial.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
25 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT NAIROBI
CRIMINAL CASE NO.65 OF 2011
REPUBLIC.....................................................................PROSECUTOR
VERSUS
PRISCILLA CHERONO CHEBET……………………..1ST ACCUSED
EMMY JEPKOSGEY CHUMO…………………………2ND ACCUSED
JOSEPHINE CHELEL…………………………………..3RD ACCUSED
RULING
1. This Ruling is in respect of trial within trial in this case. The trial within trial arose from the objection raised by the defence to the production of the confession statements purported to have been taken from the 1st and 2nd accused. The objection arose in the course of the testimony of No. 218745 SSP William Sakali Nangulu, (PW4). He told the court that he recorded confession statements from the 1st and 2nd accused. The defence objected to the statements on grounds that the same were not admissible. The court stepped down the witness and ordered a trial within trial to test the admissibility of the statements in question.
2. The prosecution called 3 witnesses. No. 56274,PC Jairus Mbondo testified as PW1. His testimony was that he arrested the 3 accused from their residence on 23rd August 2011 and handed them over to PC Mulatya. PW2 was No. 235074 Inspector Lawrence Mulatya. He told the court that he was the investigating officer in the case and that on 25th August 2011 the 1st and 2nd accused required to see the D.C.I.O. He made arrangements for each to see the D.C.I.O. He was not present in the D.C.I.O’s office when the accused gave their statements.
3. No. 218745 SSP William Nangulu testified as PW3. He was the recording officer. He testified that while in his office on 24th August 2011, Inspector Mulatya (PW2) informed him that 2 suspects being the 1st and 2nd accused wanted to give him some information. He first attended to the 1st accused Priscilla. He cautioned her and informed her of her rights. She proceeded to give her statement. At the end of the recording session she confirmed and appended her signature. He followed the same procedure for the 2nd accused.
4. At the close of the prosecution case, the court invited parties to make submissions. The gist of the prosecution’s submission is that the statements conformed to the law while defence maintained that there were breaches of the rules which rendered the statements inadmissible.
5. I have carefully considered the testimony of the 3 prosecution witnesses and the submissions now on record. I find that prosecution has made out a prima facie case warranting the 1st and 2nd accused to be put on their defence in this trial within trial.
Orders accordingly.
Ruling delivered, dated and signedatNairobithis 15thday ofSeptember, 2016
R. LAGAT-KORIR
JUDGE
In the presence of:-
…………………………: Court clerk
…………………………: 1st Accused
…………………………: 2nd accused
…………………………: For 1st accused
…………………………: For 2nd accused
…………………………: For State