Kenya Case Law

Republic v Ogutu

Republic v Ogutu [2025] KEHC 6141 (KLR)

Court

High Court

Case number

Criminal Case E013 of 2023

Judge

JM Omido

The court held that while it is mandatory to inform the accused of the right to recall witnesses under Section 200(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code, it is not mandatory to grant a de novo trial. The accused had already participated fully in the trial and cross-examined the witnesses. The main ground advanced by the accused—that the new judge should observe the witnesses' demeanor—was found insufficient, as no specific concerns about the witnesses' previous testimonies were raised. The court also considered the potential trauma to child witnesses and the difficulty in securing other witnesses…

Source excerpt

• Trial De Novo
• Recall Of Witnesses
• Fair Trial Rights
• Child Witness Protection

Silima alias 'Kajim' v Republic

Silima alias 'Kajim' v Republic [2025] KEHC 2246 (KLR)

Court

High Court

Case number

Criminal Case E026 of 2021

Judge

AM Muteti

The succeeding court has the discretion under Section 200 of the Criminal Procedure Code to determine whether a trial should proceed de novo or continue from where the predecessor judge left, balancing the accused's rights, the administration of justice, and the potential prejudice to the prosecution.

Source excerpt

• Trial De Novo
• Judicial Discretion
• Section 200 Criminal Procedure Code
• Right To Fair Trial

Silima alias 'Kajim' v Republic

Silima alias 'Kajim' v Republic [2025] KEHC 17114 (KLR)

Court

High Court

Case number

Criminal Case E026 of 2021

Judge

AM Muteti

The High Court declined an accused person’s request for a trial de novo under section 200 CPC and directed that the criminal trial continue from the previous judge’s stage.

• Trial De Novo
• Judicial Discretion
• Section 200 Criminal Procedure Code
• Right To Fair Trial
• Trial-de-novo
• Section-200-criminal-procedure-code

Republic v Ngala

Republic v Ngala [2024] KEHC 1486 (KLR)

Court

High Court

Case number

Criminal Case 4 of 2023

Judge

DR Kavedza

High Court dismissed an accused’s request to start a murder trial de novo after the judge’s transfer, finding no specific prejudice and no automatic right to restart.

• Murder Trial
• Right To Fair Trial
• Trial De Novo
• Change Of Judge
• Recall Of Witnesses
• Criminal-law

DWM v Republic

DWM v Republic [2024] KEHC 1133 (KLR)

Court

High Court

Case number

Miscellaneous Criminal Application E075 of 2022

Judge

MW Muigai

The High Court found that the applicant's failure to attend court could not be solely attributed to the Covid-19 pandemic or health issues, as absences and warrants predated the pandemic and the medical evidence was inconsistent. The trial court acted within its discretion in cancelling the bond, and there was no legal basis to interfere with that decision. The request for de novo proceedings was rejected because the applicant had participated in the trial, cross-examined witnesses, and the absence of witnesses due to delay was attributable to the applicant's conduct. The application for chan…

Source excerpt

• Bail And Bond
• Fair Trial Rights
• Change Of Venue
• Trial De Novo
• Judicial Discretion
• Covid 19 Impacts

Republic v Ateya

Republic v Ateya [2023] KEHC 21120 (KLR)

Court

High Court

Case number

Criminal Case 16 of 2017

Judge

PM Mulwa

The High Court declined an accused person’s request to restart a murder trial de novo, holding that the case should proceed from where it had reached.

• Murder Trial
• Trial De Novo
• Judicial Discretion
• Fair Trial Rights
• Trial-de-novo
• Section-200-criminal-procedure-code

Republic (ODPP) v Rajab

Republic (ODPP) v Rajab [2023] KEHC 20001 (KLR)

Court

High Court

Case number

Criminal Case 30 of 2016

Judge

PJO Otieno

The court held that while section 200 of the Criminal Procedure Code grants the accused the right to demand a trial de novo upon a change of judge, this right is not absolute and must be balanced against the broader interests of justice. The court found that, given the significant passage of time since the incident (about eight years), the age of the key witnesses at the time of the original testimony, and the absence of demonstrated prejudice to the accused, it would not serve the interests of justice to restart the trial and recall all witnesses. Applying section 200 CPC mechanically would…

Source excerpt

• Trial De Novo
• Section 200 Cpc
• Fair Trial Rights
• Recall Of Witnesses

Shee v Republic

Shee v Republic [2023] KEHC 306 (KLR)

Court

High Court

Case number

Miscellaneous Criminal Application E168 of 2022

Judge

A. Ong’injo

The High Court at Mombasa dismissed an application to revise a magistrate’s refusal to start a criminal trial de novo, finding no irregularity or impropriety.

• Revisionary Jurisdiction
• Right To Fair Hearing
• Supervisory Powers
• Trial De Novo
• Revisionary-jurisdiction
• Criminal-procedure

Mwaura v Republic

Mwaura v Republic [2022] KECA 1317 (KLR)

Court

Court of Appeal

Case number

Criminal Appeal 80 of 2020

Judges

MSA Makhandia, S ole Kantai, GWN Macharia

The Court of Appeal held that once an order for a de novo hearing is made, the trial must commence afresh, and no reference should be made to evidence adduced before the order. In this case, the trial magistrate was asked by the prosecutor to refer to evidence from the previous proceedings, and there was no indication that the magistrate disregarded this request. This amounted to a misdirection and a violation of the appellant's right to a fair trial as guaranteed by section 200 of the Criminal Procedure Code and established case law. The procedural irregularity was fundamental and rendered t…

Source excerpt

• Defilement Offence
• Trial De Novo
• Evidence Exclusion
• Criminal Procedure Code Section 200

Director of Public Prosecutions v Chikamai

Director of Public Prosecutions v Chikamai [2022] KEHC 11282 (KLR)

Court

High Court

Case number

Criminal Revision E032 of 2021

Judge

F Gikonyo

The High Court found that the trial court failed to consider relevant factors and principles before ordering the trial to begin de novo under section 200 of the Criminal Procedure Code. Specifically, the trial court did not weigh the advanced stage of the proceedings, the difficulties in procuring witnesses after a prolonged period, the likelihood of memory loss, and the prejudice to the prosecution and the victim. The court emphasized that section 200 CPC is not intended to facilitate injustice or cause undue delay, and that the discretion to order a de novo trial must be exercised judicious…

Source excerpt

• Trial De Novo
• Section 200 Cpc
• Victims Rights
• Judicial Discretion