[2004] KEHC 1770 (KLR)
The court found that the prosecution in the lower court was conducted by an officer not qualified to act as a public prosecutor under section 85(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code, rendering the proceedings a nullity. The court further determined that, despite the nullity, there was admissible evidence on record that...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2004] KEHC 1770 (KLR)
- Parties
- Appellant: Salim Okirori; Respondent: Republic
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Mombasa
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- ? 80 of 2003
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Appeal / Judgment on Appeal
- Outcome
- Appeal allowed; conviction quashed; retrial ordered under section 296(1) Penal Code.
- Legal Topics
- Public Prosecution, Nullity of Proceedings, Retrial Principles, Defective Charge Sheet
- 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
Salim Okirori
Appellant
Republic
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Judgment on Appeal
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the prosecution in the lower court was conducted by a competent public prosecutor as required by law.
- 2 Whether the proceedings in the lower court were a nullity due to improper prosecution.
- 3 Whether a retrial should be ordered and under which section of the Penal Code.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the prosecution in the lower court was conducted by an officer not qualified to act as a public prosecutor under section 85(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code, rendering the proceedings a nullity. The court further determined that, despite the nullity, there was admissible evidence on record that could support a conviction if a retrial were ordered. However, the original charge under section 296(2) of the Penal Code was defective as it failed to allege that the accused was armed with dangerous or offensive weapons, a necessary element for that charge. Therefore, the court allowed the appeal, quashed the conviction, and ordered a retrial under section 296(1) of the...
Court Disposition
Appeal allowed; conviction quashed; retrial ordered under section 296(1) Penal Code.
Orders
- The appeal is allowed.
- The proceedings in the lower court are declared a nullity.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
19 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT MOMBASA APPELLATE SIDE H.C.CR. APPEAL NO.80 OF 2003
(Being an appeal from Original Criminal Conviction and sentence in Criminal Case No.872 of 2003 of the Chief Magistrate's Court at Mombasa – J.S. Mushele, SPM)
SALIM OKIRORI ………………………………………………………… APPELLANT
VERSUS
REPUBLIC ………………………………..……………………………. RESPONDENT
Coram: Before Hon. J. Mwera, Hon. Justice Maraga Ms. Mwaniki for the State Court clerk – Mitoto
J U D G E M E N T
The learned State Counsel conceded the appeal herein, and in our view correctly so, on the basis that on 12/6/02 Cpl. Mwamburi did prosecute the case in the lower court by leading witnesses in evidence, all contrary to section 85(2) Criminal Procedure Code. He was not an officer holding the rank of assistant inspector of police and above and so he could not be a competent public prosecutor appointed by the Attorney General under the said section (see Roy Elirema & Anr. Vs. R. Cr. A. No.67/2002 (C.A.) unreported). Accordingly we had no difficulty in holding that the proceedings in the lower court were a nullity and so this appeal ought to and is hereby allowed.
The learned State Counsel however posited that the accused person do stand another trial because the evidence on the lower court record could possibly ensure a conviction. The motor vehicle used in the robbery offence, allegedly committed by the accused, hence being charged under S.296(2) Penal Code, was followed immediately after the offence by the police officers using the information of its registration number and make that they were given by eye witnesses. That the accused was found still in that motor vehicle and he was apprehended. That the offence took place in Mombasa and witnesses would be availed at the intended retrial. That the accused would suffer no prejudice.
The accused strongly resisted the prospects of being retried. He said that a retrial was not viable because there was no admissible or potentially admissible evidence upon which a conviction would likely hinge. He passed to us the case of AHMEDI SUMAR VS. R (1964) E.A. 481,stressing that PW.1’s evidence (principal witness) was thrown out by the lower court. That indeed the charge sheet was defective in the light ofSULEIMAN JUMA alias TOM VS. R. CR. A 181 (C.A.) (unreported) because although laid under S. 296(2) Penal Code it did not state that the attackers in the lower court were armed with offensive weapons.
Having considered the evidence in the lower court there is admissible evidence upon which a conviction may result on a retrial. It is all about the appellant being found in the robbery motor vehicle whose registration number eye witnesses took and gave to the police officers. On the very evening of the robbery the accused was caught still in the same vehicle. Accordingly there will be a retrial of the accused but under S.296 (1) Penal Code, because the original charge under S.296(2) Penal Code was defective in that it did not state that the accused with his mate were armed with dangerous or offensive weapons. This particular must always feature in a charge under S.296(2) Penal Code to distinguish it with ordinary robbery (see Sleiman’scase above)
In sum this appeal is allowed but the accused should stand trial under
S.296(1) Penal Code.
Judgement accordingly.
Delivered on 15th June 2004.
J.W. MWERA
JUDGE
D. MARANGA
AG. JUDGE