[2023] KEHC 3697 (KLR)
The court held that the mere disappearance of the court file and unavailability of proceedings does not entitle the appellant to an acquittal or release. The appellant was convicted by a court of competent jurisdiction, and the presumption of innocence no longer applies. The cited Court of Appeal authorities...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2023] KEHC 3697 (KLR)
- Parties
- Appellant: Martin Simiyu Wanyonyi; Respondent: Republic
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Bungoma
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Criminal Appeal 51 of 2012
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Appeal / Ruling on Application for Release Pending Appeal; Appeal Not Yet Heard
- Outcome
- application for release dismissed; conviction and sentence remain in force
- Judges
- REA Ougo
- Legal Topics
- Defilement, Missing Court Record, Presumption of Innocence, Retrial Possibility, Conviction Appeal
- 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
Martin Simiyu Wanyonyi
Appellant
Republic
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Ruling on Application for Release Pending Appeal; Appeal Not Yet Heard
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the appellant should be released due to the missing court file and unavailability of proceedings.
- 2 Whether an acquittal or retrial is appropriate where the court record is missing and the victim cannot be traced.
Ratio Decidendi
The court held that the mere disappearance of the court file and unavailability of proceedings does not entitle the appellant to an acquittal or release. The appellant was convicted by a court of competent jurisdiction, and the presumption of innocence no longer applies. The cited Court of Appeal authorities establish that acquittal should not be granted as a matter of course in such circumstances. Furthermore, a retrial is not feasible because the victim, now an adult, cannot be traced. Consequently, the appellant's plea for release was rejected, and the conviction and sentence remain in force.
Court Disposition
application for release dismissed; conviction and sentence remain in force
Orders
- The appellant's plea to be released is rejected.
- No retrial is ordered as the victim cannot be traced.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
21 paragraphs
Wanyonyi v Republic (Criminal Appeal 51 of 2012) [2023] KEHC 3697 (KLR) (28 April 2023) (Ruling)
Neutral citation: [2023] KEHC 3697 (KLR)
Republic of Kenya
In the High Court at Bungoma
Criminal Appeal 51 of 2012
REA Ougo, J
April 28, 2023
Between
Martin Simiyu Wanyonyi
Appellant
and
Republic
Respondent
Ruling
1. Martin Simiyu Wanyonyi filed an appeal in this court against the judgment of PM’s Court Webuye Criminal Case No. 124/2010. He was dissatisfied with the conviction and sentencing of life imprisonment for the offence of defilement contrary to Section 8(1) as read with Section 8(2) of the Sexual offences Act NO. 3 of 2006.
2. His appeal has never been heard. It was first placed before the judge in 2018. Since then, there have been several attempts to obtain the court proceedings for appeal purposes.
3. It is clear from the Memorandum of appeal filed that the appellant was convicted of the offence of defilement and is serving a life sentence.
4. The Respondent has challenged the released of the appellant and relied on the case of John Karanja Wainaina v Republic Criminal Appeal No. 61 of 1993 and the case of Joseph Maina Karuiki v Republic Cr. Appeal No. 53 of 2004 where the Court of Appeal held that in acquittal shouldn’t follow case result of the file missing and that appellant had lost the benefit of innocence and that the burden was on the appellant to show that the court that convicted him is in error. It was further submitted that in this case a retrial cannot even take place as the victim is now an adult and she cannot be traced.
5. The appellant in response requested this court to be allowed to go free and that he is not seeking a re-sentencing.
6. I have considered the appellant’s application . The appellant was tried and convicted by a court of competent jurisdiction at Webuye PM’s Court. I am guided by the 2 court of appeal decisions cited by the Respondent that an acquittal should not follow as a matter of course when a file has disappeared. The appellant lost the benefit of presumption of innocence given to him by the Constitution having been convicted by a competent court. The Respondent told court that the victim is now an adult and cannot be traced thus a retrial cannot be ordered. I therefore reject the appellant’s plea to be released.
DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED AT BUNGOMA VIA MICROSOFT TEAMS THIS 28TH DAY OF APRIL 2023. R.E.OUGOJUDGEIn the presence of:Appellant in personMiss Omondi for the RespondentWilkister C/A