[2018] KEHC 6918 (KLR)
The court found that the prosecution's case was not proved beyond reasonable doubt. The primary evidence against the appellant was the testimony of the deceased's wife, who admitted that the incident occurred at night and that visibility was poor. The court noted that the identification of the appellant was doubtful...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2018] KEHC 6918 (KLR)
- Parties
- Appellant: Robert Kiprotich Kirui; Respondent: Republic
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Bomet
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Criminal Appeal 80a of 2015
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Appeal / Judgment
- Outcome
- appeal_allowed
- Judges
- GO Shikwe
- Legal Topics
- Manslaughter, Standard of Proof, Identification Evidence, Fair Trial 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
Robert Kiprotich Kirui
Appellant
Republic
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the prosecution proved the offence of manslaughter against the appellant beyond reasonable doubt.
- 2 Whether the identification evidence was reliable and sufficient to sustain a conviction.
- 3 Whether the appellant's right to a fair and expeditious trial was violated.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the prosecution's case was not proved beyond reasonable doubt. The primary evidence against the appellant was the testimony of the deceased's wife, who admitted that the incident occurred at night and that visibility was poor. The court noted that the identification of the appellant was doubtful and suspect, as the witness ran away during the incident and only returned after the attack. Furthermore, the prosecution failed to call the co-accused, who had been discharged specifically to testify against the appellant, thereby weakening the case. The court also observed that the trial was unduly delayed, spanning nearly seven years, which violated the appellant's right to...
Court Disposition
appeal_allowed
Orders
- The conviction is quashed.
- The sentence is set aside.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
28 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT BOMET
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 80A OF 2015
ROBERT KIPROTICH KIRUI.............APPELLANT
-VERSUS-
REPUBLIC...........................................RESPONDENT
(Being an appeal from the original conviction and sentence in Criminal Case NO. 236 of 2013 Bomet SPMs Court Hon. P. Achieng PM)
JUDGMENT
This appellant was convicted and sentenced to 10 years imprisonment for the offence of manslaughter Contrary to Section 202 as read with Section 205 of the Penal Code.
The particulars are that on the 31st day of July 2008 at around 7. 30 p.m. at Njerian village Bomet County unlawfully killed PAUL KIPKOECH MUTAI
The prosecution called five witnesses in support of their case whereas the defence called three.
This is the first appellate court. It has a duty to evaluate and reconsider the evidence on record bearing in mind that this court did not have the opportunity of observing the demeanour of the witnesses. Okelo V R 1972 EALR.
Brief Facts
Robert Kiprotich Kirui (1st accused) Benard Cheruiyot Kirui (2nd Accused) and Robert Kiprotich Korir (3rd Accused) were arraigned at Kericho High Court for the offence of murder contrary to Section 203 as read with Section 205 of the penal code vide Cr Case No. 31 of 2008.
Plea was taken on 22/9/2008 subsequently the case proceeded to hearing. On 7/10/2012 an application was made by the prosecution to discontinue the case against the 3rd Accused which application was granted.
On 16/10/2012 another application was made before the Judge for discontinuation of the case against the 2nd Accused. the court had its reservations against the second application but late acceded to it. The reasons for discontinuance were that the accused persons had agreed to testify against the first Accused. On the same day a plea agreement was tendered before the court which was to the effect that the 1st Accused was to be charged with the offence of manslaughter C/S 202 as read with S.205 of the penal code and that the Accused shall enter plea of not guilty to the charges/information and that the matter was to be referred to the Chief Magistrate’s court for trial.
Subsequently Robert Kiprotich Kirui was singularly arraigned in court on 2/4/2013 on a charge of manslaughter C/s 202 of the penal code.
It is instructive to note that his co-accused persons were not called to testify against him after they were discharged but the Accused later called them to testify in support of his defence in the lower court.
The evidence by Edna Mutai (PW1) is that the incident took place outside her house when her husband went to find out the reason for the screams. PW1 did testify that it was dark but not very dark.
The prosecution in this case appears to have been compromised right from the time it was being heard in the High court. After the murder case was heard for close to four years the prosecution commenced applications for the discontinuance of the case for the accused persons who were charged with the Accused in that case.
After the 2nd and 3rd Accused persons were discharged for purposes of testifying against the 1st Accused, everything went quiet. A plea agreement was reached whereby the Accused was charged with manslaughter. The case in the lower court commenced on 2/4/2013 and was determined on 3/11/2015. It commenced in the High Court on 13/8/2008. This is a span of close to seven years while in custody. This trial was not fair and expeditious.
The evidence against the Accused was largely by the wife of the Deceased. It was dark at the time and identification was doubtful and suspect. PW1 ran away and returned to find her husband having been seriously attacked.
I am not satisfied that this case was proved beyond reasonable doubt. The conviction was not safe.
The appeal has merit. The conviction is quashed and the sentence set aside. The appellant is set at liberty unless otherwise lawfully held.
Judgment delivered dated and signed this 7th day of March 2018 in open court and in the presence of counsel for the prosecution Mr. Barasa, the appellant in person. Court Assistant Rotich.
M. MUYA
JUDGE
7/3/2018