[2022] KEHC 13628 (KLR)
The court found that the seven-year delay in commencing the trial, during which no witnesses were called, constituted a violation of the accused persons' right to a fair and speedy trial under Article 50 of the Constitution. The State had ample opportunity to present its case but failed to do so without...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2022] KEHC 13628 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Republic; Defendant: Silvester Sindani Tambaa; Defendant: Bonface Mwanzi Okonyo; Defendant: Sedrick Mudave Jomo; Defendant: Allan Ambeyi Lichoti
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Kakamega
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Criminal Case 15 of 2015
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Case / Ruling on Application for Adjournment and Termination of Prosecution
- Outcome
- Application for adjournment denied; prosecution terminated; accused persons acquitted.
- Judges
- WM Musyoka
- Legal Topics
- Murder Trial, Fair Trial Rights, Adjournment, Delay of Prosecution
- 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
Silvester Sindani Tambaa
Defendant
Bonface Mwanzi Okonyo
Defendant
Sedrick Mudave Jomo
Defendant
Allan Ambeyi Lichoti
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Criminal Case / Ruling on Application for Adjournment and Termination of Prosecution
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the prolonged delay in prosecution violated the accused persons' right to a fair and speedy trial under Article 50 of the Constitution.
- 2 Whether the State should be granted a further adjournment to call witnesses after seven years of inaction.
- 3 Whether the prosecution against the accused persons should be terminated due to the delay.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the seven-year delay in commencing the trial, during which no witnesses were called, constituted a violation of the accused persons' right to a fair and speedy trial under Article 50 of the Constitution. The State had ample opportunity to present its case but failed to do so without justification. Allowing a further adjournment would not guarantee progress and would perpetuate the violation of the accused persons' rights. Consequently, the court denied the State's application for adjournment, terminated the prosecution, and acquitted the accused persons of the murder charge.
Court Disposition
Application for adjournment denied; prosecution terminated; accused persons acquitted.
Orders
- The application for adjournment by the State is denied.
- The prosecution of the four accused persons is terminated.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
26 paragraphs
Republic v Tambaa & 3 others (Criminal Case 15 of 2015) [2022] KEHC 13628 (KLR) (23 September 2022) (Ruling)
Neutral citation: [2022] KEHC 13628 (KLR)
Republic of Kenya
In the High Court at Kakamega
Criminal Case 15 of 2015
WM Musyoka, J
September 23, 2022
Between
Republic
Prosecution
and
Silvester Sindani Tambaa
1st Accused
Bonface Mwanzi Okonyo
2nd Accused
Sedrick Mudave Jomo
3rd Accused
Allan Ambeyi Lichoti
4th Accused
Ruling
1. This is one of the matters that I took over from F. Amin J. on 16th June 2022. It was due for ruling on 21st April 2022, over an application to have the matter adjourned to allow the Republic to call witnesses.
2. The accused persons are charged with the murder of Genald Shiandayi Kamau. The particulars are that on the 24th February 2015, at Mukomari Village, Lukusi Sub-Location, Kakamega East District, within Kakamega County, they murdered the said person. Plea was taken on 25th March 2015, and all the four accused persons denied the charges. No witness has ever testified in the matter since.
3. Under the Constitution of Kenya, Article 50, an accused person is entitled to a fair and speedy trial. A delay of seven years to have a case against an accused person start in earnest, by having witnesses presented and testify, cannot be said to be a fair and speedy trial. In this case there has been violation of the fair trial principles as a result.
4. I am persuaded that the adjournment sought by the State ought not to be allowed. The State has had seven years to present witnesses, and it has failed to take advantage of the opportunity. There is no guarantee that being allowed more time will yield any results.
5. I shall accordingly deny the adjournment sought, terminate the prosecution of the four accused persons, and acquit them of the murder charge that they face. They shall be set free, unless they are otherwise lawfully held.
RULING DELIVERED, DATED AND SIGNED IN OPEN COURT AT KAKAMEGA THIS 23RD DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2022W M MUSYOKAJUDGEMr. Erick Zalo, Court Assistant.Ms. Kagai, instructed by the Director of Public Prosecutions, for the Republic.Mr. Ondieki, Advocate for the accused persons.2