[2022] KEHC 15298 (KLR)
The court determined that taking plea would not prejudice the accused persons' rights to pursue a constitutional petition challenging the court's jurisdiction. The accused would still be at liberty to file such petitions, and any successful challenge could nullify the proceedings. Given the matter had been pending...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2022] KEHC 15298 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Republic; Defendant: Titus Yoma; Defendant: Titus Mutune; Defendant: John Chengo Masha; Defendant: Linah Kogey; Defendant: Benjamin Kipkoskei Koima; Defendant: Benjamin Lorema; Defendant: Volker Edambo; Defendant: Cyprine Robi Wankio; Defendant: Josphat Sensira; Defendant: Mohamed Ali Guyo; Defendant: Mohammed Baa; Defendant: James Rono
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Criminal Case E074 of 2022
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Case / Ruling on Application to Defer Plea
- Outcome
- Application for extended deferment of plea denied; plea deferred for 7 days only.
- Judges
- DO Ogembo
- Legal Topics
- Plea Deferment, Constitutional Rights, Jurisdiction Challenge
- 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
Titus Yoma
Defendant
Titus Mutune
Defendant
John Chengo Masha
Defendant
Linah Kogey
Defendant
Benjamin Kipkoskei Koima
Defendant
Benjamin Lorema
Defendant
Volker Edambo
Defendant
Cyprine Robi Wankio
Defendant
Josphat Sensira
Defendant
Mohamed Ali Guyo
Defendant
Mohammed Baa
Defendant
James Rono
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Criminal Case / Ruling on Application to Defer Plea
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether plea taking should be deferred to allow accused persons to pursue a constitutional petition challenging the court's jurisdiction.
- 2 Whether taking plea would prejudice the accused persons' rights if they intend to challenge the proceedings constitutionally.
- 3 How to balance the rights of the accused and the victims in the context of a delayed criminal process.
Ratio Decidendi
The court determined that taking plea would not prejudice the accused persons' rights to pursue a constitutional petition challenging the court's jurisdiction. The accused would still be at liberty to file such petitions, and any successful challenge could nullify the proceedings. Given the matter had been pending for about five years, the court found it proper and fair to proceed with plea taking to balance the rights of both the accused and the victims. The court therefore ordered a short deferment of seven days to allow all accused persons to be present, with summons to issue for those absent, and allowed those present to execute personal bonds to secure their attendance.
Court Disposition
Application for extended deferment of plea denied; plea deferred for 7 days only.
Orders
- Plea deferred for 7 days to enable all accused to be present with their advocates.
- Summons to issue to accused 4, 10, and 11 to attend court on the date of plea.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
41 paragraphs
Republic v Yoma & 11 others (Criminal Case E074 of 2022) [2022] KEHC 15298 (KLR) (Crim) (14 November 2022) (Ruling)
Neutral citation: [2022] KEHC 15298 (KLR)
Republic of Kenya
In the High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
Criminal
Criminal Case E074 of 2022
DO Ogembo, J
November 14, 2022
Between
Republic
Prosecutor
and
Titus Yoma
1st Accused
Titus Mutune
2nd Accused
John Chengo Masha
3rd Accused
Linah Kogey
4th Accused
Benjamin Kipkoskei Koima
5th Accused
Benjamin Lorema
6th Accused
Volker Edambo
7th Accused
Cyprine Robi Wankio
8th Accused
Josphat Sensira
9th Accused
Mohamed Ali Guyo
10th Accused
Mohammed Baa
11th Accused
James Rono
12th Accused
Ruling
1. I have considered the submissions of the parties herein. The prosecution has asked for differment of plea herein for a short period so that the suspects who are not present today may be present when plea is taken. The advocates for the subjects present have on the other hand, urgued for differment of plea taking for at least 2 months. The reasons given are that the subjects intend to pursue a constitutional petition challenging the jurisdiction of this court to hear this matter.
2. In my view, even if the plea herein is taken, the subjects would still be at liberty and reserve their rights to pursue the intended constitutional petitions which if successful could lead to orders that could even declare the proceedings herein a nullity. In that event, I do not see any prejudice that the subjects (defence) would suffer should plea be taken herein.
3. This court has been told that this matter has been in courts for about 5 years. In balancing the constitutional rights of the subjects before the court and those of the victims, it is in my view proper and fair that plea be taken so that this matter may be determined one way or the other. It is in the interest of both sides therefore, that the subjects do take plea herein and to respond to the charges herein as urged by the prosecution and counsel watching brief for the victims.In the circumstances therefore, I order as follows:-i.Plea herein is differed for 7 days to enable the subjects (accused) who are absent today, to be present with their advocates.ii.Summons to issue to accused 4, 10, and 11 to be present and attend court on the date of plea.iii.In the meantime, each of the subjects (accused) present before court may execute personal bonds of Kshs. 200,000/= and undertake to attend court on the date fixed for plea.iv.Matter fixed plea.
MENTION 21. 11. 2022. (KIMONDO J.).D. O. OGEMBOJUDGE14TH NOVEMBER, 2022