[2020] KEHC 7806 (KLR)
The court held that the applicants' request for full disclosure of the investigation diary, inventory list, and unredacted witness statements could not be granted in light of the existing orders under the Witness Protection Act. The court found that the enforcement of the Witness Protection Act, including the supply...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2020] KEHC 7806 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Timothy Kiptanui Kitai alias Chebarakach; Applicant: Cleophas Ngeiywo Kitai alias Jetiley; Applicant: Alex Juma Taboi; Applicant: Robin Jikwicha Chesebe; Applicant: Aron Kimutai Sichaka; Applicant: Samwel Kipsang Kiboi; Respondent: Republic
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Bungoma
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Miscellaneous Criminal Application 73 of 2019
- Procedural Posture
- Miscellaneous Criminal Application / Ruling on Pre Trial Disclosure Application
- Outcome
- application dismissed
- Legal Topics
- Pre Trial Disclosure, Witness Protection, Constitutional Rights of Accused
- 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
Timothy Kiptanui Kitai alias Chebarakach
Applicant
Cleophas Ngeiywo Kitai alias Jetiley
Applicant
Alex Juma Taboi
Applicant
Robin Jikwicha Chesebe
Applicant
Aron Kimutai Sichaka
Applicant
Samwel Kipsang Kiboi
Applicant
Republic
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Criminal Application / Ruling on Pre Trial Disclosure Application
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the applicants are entitled to be supplied with the investigation diary, inventory list, and witness statements before trial.
- 2 Whether failure to supply these documents violates the applicants' constitutional rights under Articles 25(c), 26(1)(2), and 49(1)(f)(i) of the Constitution.
- 3 Whether the enforcement of the Witness Protection Act is unconstitutional in the circumstances.
Ratio Decidendi
The court held that the applicants' request for full disclosure of the investigation diary, inventory list, and unredacted witness statements could not be granted in light of the existing orders under the Witness Protection Act. The court found that the enforcement of the Witness Protection Act, including the supply of redacted witness statements, closed session testimony, and use of pseudonyms, is constitutional and does not violate the applicants' rights to a fair trial. The court emphasized that the statutory framework for witness protection must be observed, and the applicants' application was therefore dismissed. The matters were directed to proceed for hearing in accordance with the...
Court Disposition
application dismissed
Orders
- The application is dismissed.
- The matters to proceed for hearing within the provisions of the Witness Protection Act.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
28 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA
AT BUNGOMA
MISCELLANEOUS CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 73 OF 2019
TIMOTHY KIPTANUI KITAI ALIAS CHEBARAKACH.....1ST APPLICANT
CLEOPHAS NGEIYWO KITAI ALIAS JETILEY................ 2ND APPLICANT
ALEX JUMA TABOI .................................................................3RD APPLICANT
ROBIN JIKWICHA CHESEBE ..............................................4TH APPLICANT
ARON KIMUTAI SICHAKA....................................................5TH APPLICANT
SAMWEL KIPSANG KIBOI...................................................6TH APPLICANT
VERSUS
REPUBLIC .................................................................................... RESPONDENT
R U L I N G
The applicants: -
1. Timothy Kiptanui Kital alias Chebarakach
2. Cleophas Ngeiywo Kitai alias Jetiley
3. Alex Juma Taboi
4. Robin Kikwicha Chesebe
5. Aron Kimutai Sichaka
6. Samwel Kipsang Kiboi
are facing several charges of Robbery with violence contrary to section 296(1) of the Penal Code. They have filed this application received in this Court on 25/10/2019 seeking orders to be supplied with copy of extract of Investigation Diary, Inventory list and copies of witness statements. They claimed that failure to supply the stated documents offends their rights under Article 25(C) 26(1)(2) 49(1) (f) i of the constitution.
The applicants filed written submissions in support of their application. They also submit that this Court order issued in CR 1314/2018 by Aburili J were not complied with. M/S Nyakibia for State in response opposed the application stating that the High Court has expressed itself in MISC. 59/2018 and that the request for transfer of and allocation of cases for hearing among magistrates is an administrative action of the Chief Magistrate as the accused have a total of 15 cases against them.
I have considered the application and submissions and the response. The High Court in Bungoma MISC. APPLICATION NO. 59/2018 granted orders under, for witness protection act, which orders included supply of witness statements which are redated, witnesses to testify in closed session use of psudonyms, and orders of witness protection of witnesses.
There is nothing unconstitutional in the enforcement of the provisions of the Witness Protection Act, Act No. 16/2006.
This application is hereby dismissed with the directions that the matters do proceed for hearings within the Provisions of the Witness Protection Act.
Dated and delivered at Bungoma this 13th day of February, 2020.
S. N. Riechi.
J U D G E