Bernard Muchomba v Republic [2014] KECA 772 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Court of Appeal confirmed that when a trial record shows the charge was explained in a language the accused understood, complaints about plea-taking will not overturn a conviction.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Questions the Court framed
#The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.
- 1.Whether the High Court erred in dismissing the first appeal without satisfying itself that the plea was properly taken in accordance with the law
- 2.Whether the trial was flawed from the onset as the particulars of the charge and every ingredient thereof were not read and explained to the appellant
Key legal issues
#Whether the plea was properly taken in accordance with the law
The plea was properly taken; the record showed the substance of the charge was read over and explained and that interpretation into Kimeru was done, and the appellant stated he understood Kiswahili and Kimeru
The record of the plea-taking on 30th June 2009 showed interpretation from English to Kimeru and the entry that the substance of the charge was read over and explained, with a plea of not guilty entered. The Court held that explaining the substance of the charge necessarily includes its essential ingredients. The record of a subsequent hearing also showed the appellant stated he understood Kiswahili and Kimeru, satisfying the requirements identified in Adan v Republic.
Whether the trial was vitiated by failures in language and interpretation
The appeal fails; the trial was conducted in a language understood by the appellant, following the approach in Degow Dagane Nunow and Francis Kimani Muthoko
Applying Degow Dagane Nunow and Francis Kimani Muthoko, the Court found that where the record at plea-taking shows the language and interpretation arrangements and no suggestion of difficulty is made thereafter, a complaint about language and interpretation has no merit. Section 198(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code requires interpretation of evidence in a language the accused does not understand; here interpretation from English to Kimeru was done and the appellant indicated he understood Kiswahili and Kimeru.
Legal principles established
#- A second appeal to the Court of Appeal is confined to points of law and the Court will not interfere with concurrent findings of fact of the two lower courts unless they are based on no evidence
- An explanation of the substance of the charge to an accused necessarily includes the essential ingredients of the offence as contained in the charge sheet
Court orders
#- 1.Appeal dismissed
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
Wrote the judgment
Wrote the judgment
- On appeal from
- High Court at Meru
- H.C.CR A. No. 238 of 2009
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Second appeal to the Court of Appeal under the Criminal Procedure Code, confined to points of law
Relief refused
#Allowance of the appeal on the ground that the plea was not properly taken
The record showed the substance of the charge and its essential ingredients were explained to the appellant in a language he understood
Costs
No order as to costs is recorded in the judgment.
Quotable passages
#Verbatim from the judgment, each located to the page it appears on in the official PDF — so these can be cited and checked directly.
A second appeal must be confined to points of law and this Court will not interfere with concurrent findings of facts arrived at in the two courts below unless based on no evidence.
It is our considered view that an explanation of the substance of the charge of necessity includes the essential ingredients of the charge as contained in the charge sheet.
Both grounds of appeal have no merit and this appeal is dismissed.
Issues in the judgment
#The trial court record quoted in the judgment records the plea reply as 'Not true' rather than the conventional 'Not guilty', although the judgment states a plea of not guilty was entered
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Bernard Muchomba v Republic [2014] KECA 772 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2014). Criminal Appeal No. 63 of 2013. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/2014/772/eng@2014-02-05
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.