[2014] KEHC 334 (KLR)
The court held that the prosecution's repeated failure to produce witnesses, without credible explanation, is unacceptable and contributes to undue delay in the retrial of the accused, who has already been in custody for a prolonged period. The court emphasized that even partial progress with available witnesses is...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2014] KEHC 334 (KLR)
- Parties
- Respondent: State; Applicant: Joel Ombacho Kiriago
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Kisii
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Judgment Date
- 3 November 2014
- Case Number
- Criminal Case 1 of 2011
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Case / Ruling on Mention for Hearing Date After Order for Retrial
- Outcome
- Mention date fixed for hearing; prosecution cautioned on future conduct regarding witness availability.
- Legal Topics
- Retrial Procedure, Delay in Criminal Trials, Prosecution Duty to Produce Witnesses
- Source Language
- english
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
State
Respondent
Joel Ombacho Kiriago
Applicant
Procedural Posture
Criminal Case / Ruling on Mention for Hearing Date After Order for Retrial
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the prosecution has provided sufficient explanation for the absence of witnesses at the scheduled hearing.
- 2 Whether the court should continue to tolerate delays in producing witnesses for the retrial of a murder case.
Ratio Decidendi
The court held that the prosecution's repeated failure to produce witnesses, without credible explanation, is unacceptable and contributes to undue delay in the retrial of the accused, who has already been in custody for a prolonged period. The court emphasized that even partial progress with available witnesses is preferable to no progress at all. The prosecution is cautioned that future requests for adjournment must be supported by credible explanations, failing which the court will not entertain such requests. The matter is set for mention to fix a hearing date, underscoring the court's insistence on expeditious trial management.
Court Disposition
Mention date fixed for hearing; prosecution cautioned on future conduct regarding witness availability.
Orders
- The matter to be mentioned to take a hearing date on 1st December, 2014.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
18 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT KISII
CRIMINAL CASE NO. 1 OF 2011
STATE……………………………………......…..…………..PROSECUTOR
VERSUS
JOEL OMBACHO KIRIAGO………………………………....…..ACCUSED
RULING
1. It is true that the accused has been in custody for a very long time. It is, however, also, true that his case was heard and concluded. He then appealed to the court of Appeal. The court of Appeal allowed the appeal by the appellant and ordered for re-trial. In other words the accused awaits a re-trial of his case.
2. The prosecutor must endeavour to organize their witnesses if murder cases are to be speeded up. It is not enough to utter, repeatedly, that investigating officer did not avail witnesses. Even one or two witnesses if available, is progress of the trial, rather than no witnesses, no hearing.
3. This the prosecution must, in future come with credible explanations why there are no witnesses. The court will not, in future, entertain casual explanation.
4. The matter to be mentioned to take a hearing date on 1st December, 2014.
Ruling dated and delivered at Kisii this 3rd day of November, 2014.
C.B. NAGILLAH,
JUDGE.
In the presence of:-
Magare holding brief for Omwega for the applicant.
Imbali for the respondent
Edwin Court Clerk.