CRIMINAL REVISION NO. 308 OF 2011 - DPP and EACC vs Republic, Florence Beth Murevu, Reuben Nyaruri Oisebe and Alex Kilingi Kithuku
Summary: The appellants approached the High Court seeking revising orders to revive/reinstate orders made by the trial court terminating the case against the 2nd, 3rd and 4th Respondents. The facts of the case were that the accused persons were arraigned in court and charged with various charges, including soliciting and receiving a bribe to facilitate the release of the complainant's motor vehicle detained at the police station where the two accused persons work, dealing with suspect property and concealing evidence. However, the case was plagued with numerous requests for adjournments by the prosecution and slow pace of prosecution of the case, further aggrevated by the complainant's lack of appearance for approximately 20 court dates over a two year period. Counsel for the accused applied for an acquittal on this basis, and the court agreed stating that the accused persons are entitled to a speedy trial, and the delay in hearing this case was to their detriment. The court therefore acquitted the accused persons under Section 202 Criminal Procedure Code for want of due diligence by the complainant. The appellants argued that an acquittal under section 202 of the Criminal Procedure Code was a misapprehension of the law by the trial magistrate. It was further averred that the trial magistrate failed to take into account that the complainant in a criminal case is the state as opposed to the person who reported the case, and therefore the trial court erred in acquitting the accused person for want of due diligence on the complainant's part. The High Court while noting that three magistrates had handled the matter without concluding thanks to the excuses by the prosecution, was categorical that economic crime matters are supposed to be heard and concluded expeditiously on a day to day basis and delay of over 2 years is to say the least unreasonable. The application for revision was dismissed.
First offence date: 22/Jun/2015
Start date: 14/Jul/2015
Ruling date: 01/Jan/1970
Defendant plea:
Amount involved: KES 30,000.00
Type of case: Soliciting for a Benefit, Receiving a bribe
Resolution comments:
Charge
Plea
Fine amount
Judgement
Count 1 - Corruptly soliciting for a benefit contrary to Section 39(3)(a) as read with Section 48(1) of the Anti Corruption and Economic Crimes Act.
Not guilty
0.00
Application Dismissed
Count 2 - Corruptly receiving a benefit contrary to Section 39(3)(a) as read with Section 48(1) of the Anti Corruption and Economic Crimes Act
Not guilty
0.00
Application Dismissed
Count 3 - Dealing with suspect property contrary to Section 47(1)(a) as read with Section 48(1) of the Anti Corruption and Economic Crimes Act
Not guilty
0.00
Application Dismissed
Count 4 - Concealing evidence contrary to Section 66(2) of the Anti Corruption and Economic Crimes Act
Not guilty
0.00
Application Dismissed