REPUBLIC v PHILIP KIPKORIR RONO [2010] KEHC 3685 (KLR)

REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT KERICHO

Criminal Case 4 of 2009

1. Criminal Practice & Procedure

2. Application for adjournment.

i)              Accused’s information 23rd January 2009

ii)              Plea 3rd February 2009

iii)             Hearing – 19th January 2010

iv)            On 19th January 2010 no witnesses.

Reasons;- Investigating officer not aware of hearing date.

3.     Held; -

i)              Since 3rd February 2009 to date accused appeared for mention before the Deputy Registrar every 14 days.

ii)              A representative of the State present during the mentions and aware of the hearing dates.

iii)             Application for adjournment after for 12 months in remand custody, a period given to the State to re-investigate their case and ensure they are ready for trial, is not given for good cause.

iv)            Application refused.

4.     Case Law; Nil.

5.     Advocates;

-K. L. Kipyegon Advocate instructed by the firm of K. L. Kipyegon & Co. Advocates; present.

-P. Kiprop, State counsel instructed by the Attorney General for the stateREPUBLIC……………………………………………………..PROSECUTOR

VERSUS

PHILIP KIPKOR RONO………………………………………….ACCUSED

RULING

1. On 23rd January 2009, the accused herein was charged through information for the offence of Murder contrary toSection 203 as read withSection 204 CPC.

2. His plea was taken on 3rd February 2009 when he pleaded ‘not guilty’ to the offence. This plea was maintained as of 19th January 2010.

3. This court gave a hearing date almost 12 months later. This being

19th January 2010. On the day the case was called out for hearing, the advocate for the State prayed for an adjournment.

4. The reasons given for an adjournment is that the hearing dates having been taken for 19th January 2010, it was assumed that the investigating officer ought to be present in court. No communication was made by the State Law Officer, to the investigating officer until 16th December 2009. The investigating officer did not receive this communication. It therefore meant that there were NO witnesses to court.

5. The advocate for the accused leaves the matter to court.

6. Capital offence trials before the High Court of Kenya at Kericho, are numerous. In order to give the State sufficient time to prepare their case and in order to ensue trials are held and finalized in a day or two, hearing dates have been generally spaced out for 12 months. This in effect means that the prisoner is kept in remand for a considerable time, but at the end of that period, he/she is guaranteed his trial would proceed without frequent adjournments.

7. The procedure of committal bundles having been set aside and no longer in use, Inquest trials are now being held before a murder information is preferred.

8. In this case, the reasons given by the State, that witnesses are not before court due to lack of confirmation, is an embarrassment and a total lack of seriousness to a matter which is very grave in substance.

9. I decline to grant an adjournment. The victims may be effected by this decision but they have a right to sue in a Civil Court, of both the State and accused for compensation.

Dated this 19th day of January 2010 at Kericho

M. A. ANG’AWA

JUDGE

Advocates

-K. L. Kipyegon Advocate instructed by the firm of K. L. Kipyegon & Co. Advocates; present.

-P. Kiprop, State counsel instructed by the Attorney General for the State; present.