[2016] KEHC 2298 (KLR)
The High Court found that there was no justification for staying the proceedings in the trial court pending the intended appeal by the Director of Public Prosecutions. The trial magistrate had indicated that reasons for the acquittal of the 2nd accused would be included in the final judgment, and was not obliged to...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2016] KEHC 2298 (KLR)
- Parties
- Respondent: Republic; Applicant: Robert Cheruiyot; Applicant: Judith Achieng Nyagol
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nakuru
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Revision Case 43 of 2016
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Revision / Ruling on Application for Stay of Proceedings Pending Appeal
- Outcome
- application for stay of proceedings declined
- Judges
- JV Juma
- Legal Topics
- Revision Jurisdiction, Supervisory Powers, Acquittal Procedure, Anti Corruption Offences
- 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
Respondent
Robert Cheruiyot
Applicant
Judith Achieng Nyagol
Applicant
Procedural Posture
Criminal Revision / Ruling on Application for Stay of Proceedings Pending Appeal
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the High Court should stay the ongoing trial pending the Director of Public Prosecution's intended appeal against the acquittal of the 2nd accused.
- 2 Whether the trial magistrate is obliged to give reasons for acquittal at the close of the prosecution case under Section 210 of the Criminal Procedure Code.
Ratio Decidendi
The High Court found that there was no justification for staying the proceedings in the trial court pending the intended appeal by the Director of Public Prosecutions. The trial magistrate had indicated that reasons for the acquittal of the 2nd accused would be included in the final judgment, and was not obliged to provide them at the close of the prosecution case. Providing reasons at this stage could prejudice the ongoing proceedings against the remaining accused. The Director of Public Prosecutions retains the right to appeal after the final judgment, and no prejudice would be suffered by allowing the trial to proceed. Accordingly, the application for stay was declined, and the trial...
Court Disposition
application for stay of proceedings declined
Orders
- The application for stay of proceedings is declined.
- The trial magistrate is directed to include reasons for the acquittal of the 2nd accused in the final judgment.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
19 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA
AT NAKURU
REVISION No. 43 OF 2016
REPUBLIC …………………………….……………………...………RESPONDENT
VERSUS
ROBERT CHERUIYOT …………………………………………..….. 1ST APPLICANT
JUDITH ACHIENG NYAGOL ………………………………...……. 2ND APPLICANT
(Revision from the Ruling issued by the Chief Magistrate’s Court at Nakuru, Hon. Liza Gicheha – Senior Principal Magistrate on 15th September, 2016 on Anti Corruption Case No. 5 of 2015)
RULING
By way of their letter dated 7th October 2016 the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions asks that the High Court invoke its supervisory powers under Section 36 of the Criminal Procedure Code in respect of the Proceedings in Nakuru ACC No. 5/2015, REPUBLIC Vs ROBERT CHERUIYOT and JUDITH ACHIENG NYAGOL.
In that case, the two accused persons faced various charges under the Anti-corruption and Economic Crimes Act, 2013. After calling twelve (12) witnesses the prosecution closed its case on 3/8/2016. By a ruling delivered on 15/9/2016 the learned trial magistrate acquitted the 2nd accused JUDITH NYAGOL under Section 210 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The 1st accused ROBERT CHERUIYOTwas however placed on his defence.
The office of the Director of Public Prosecution have indicated an intention to appeal the court’s decision to acquit the 2nd accused and are aggrieved by the decision of the trial magistrate not to give reasons in her ruling for her acquittal of the 2nd accused person. They seek to have the trial stayed pending the hearing and determination of such appeal.
The Director of Public Prosecution is quite within this right to appeal the court’s decision to acquit the 2nd accused. However I find no justification in staying the proceedings to await the outcome of such appeal.
The trial magistrate clearly stated that the reasons for such acquittal would be included in the final judgment. The learned trial magistrate is not obliged to give reasons for her acquittal at this stage. To give reasons at this stage may prejudice the remaining proceedings. The Director of Public Prosecution may await the delivery of the final judgment and depending on the outcome of the case against the 1st accused my then determine how they wish to proceed. I see no prejudice to any party in directing that the trial proceed to its logical conclusion. I therefore decline to grant a stay as prayed and I direct that the trial magistrate include the reasons for the acquittal of the 2nd accused in her final judgment.
It is so ordered.
Dated in Nakuru this 24th day of October, 2016.
M. Odero
Judge