[2021] KEHC 511 (KLR)

[2021] KEHC 511 (KLR)

The High Court found that although the trial court explained the rights under Section 211 of the Criminal Procedure Code to the accused persons, the procedure adopted—allowing some accused persons to adopt the testimonies of others—was irregular because some testimonies were sworn and others unsworn. This...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2021] KEHC 511 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: Samuel Lolngojine; Applicant: Alfred Tanui; Applicant: Isaac Mwangirwa; Applicant: Dauglas Mwendwa; Applicant: Douglas Ondiek Omurwa; Applicant: Cyrus Andungu Njambi; Applicant: Eyole Martin Lokesho; Applicant: David Mwangi Thimba; Applicant: Constant Kwoba Maloba; Applicant: Leonard Ndungu Muiruri; Applicant: Festus Kiptabut Ngetich; Respondent: Republic
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Kericho
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Criminal Revision E098 of 2021
Procedural Posture
Criminal Revision / Revision Ruling
Outcome
Order of the trial court allowing adoption of testimonies set aside; matter remitted for compliance with Section 211 of the Criminal Procedure Code.
Judges
AN Ongeri
Legal Topics
Accused Persons Rights, Section 211 Cpc, Defence Evidence, Trial Procedure, Revision Jurisdiction
Source Language
en
Criminal Law Civil Procedure Accused Persons Rights Section 211 Cpc Defence Evidence Trial Procedure Revision Jurisdiction

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Samuel Lolngojine

Applicant

Alfred Tanui

Applicant

Isaac Mwangirwa

Applicant

Dauglas Mwendwa

Applicant

Douglas Ondiek Omurwa

Applicant

Cyrus Andungu Njambi

Applicant

Eyole Martin Lokesho

Applicant

David Mwangi Thimba

Applicant

Constant Kwoba Maloba

Applicant

Leonard Ndungu Muiruri

Applicant

Festus Kiptabut Ngetich

Applicant

Republic

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Revision / Revision Ruling

  1. 1 Whether the trial court complied with Section 211 of the Criminal Procedure Code in informing the accused persons of their rights at the close of the prosecution case.
  2. 2 Whether the adoption of testimonies by some accused persons was proper given the distinction between sworn and unsworn evidence.
  3. 3 Whether the proceedings of 16/9/2021 in CM Criminal Case No. 313 of 2019 require revision for compliance with the law.

Ratio Decidendi

The High Court found that although the trial court explained the rights under Section 211 of the Criminal Procedure Code to the accused persons, the procedure adopted—allowing some accused persons to adopt the testimonies of others—was irregular because some testimonies were sworn and others unsworn. This contravened the requirement that each accused must individually elect whether to give sworn or unsworn evidence and adduce their own evidence. The court held that the adoption of testimonies in this manner was not proper and directed that the affected accused persons (A2, A3, A4, A5, A6, and A11) must specifically opt for sworn or unsworn testimony and adduce their evidence as required...

Court Disposition

Order of the trial court allowing adoption of testimonies set aside; matter remitted for compliance with Section 211 of the Criminal Procedure Code.

Orders

  • The order allowing A2, A3, A4, A5, A6, and A11 to adopt the testimonies of A1, A7, A8, A9, and A10 is set aside.
  • A2, A3, A4, A5, A6, and A11 are directed to specifically elect whether to give sworn or unsworn testimony and to adduce their own evidence as required by Section 211 of the Criminal Procedure Code.