Republic v Gidion alias Sonko & 2 others (Anti-Corruption and Economic Crimes Case 1 of 2020) [2025] KEMC 163 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenyan courts can now admit disputed documents during a criminal trial and decide later whether they were admissible, speeding up justice.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether trial objections must be determined instantly during the evidence-taking stage
No - the Court should note the objection, permit tentative production of the document as an exhibit, and defer the objection to the final judgment under section 215 of the CPC
Following Bipin Shantilal Panchal, the practice of staying hearings to rule instantly on admissibility objections causes inordinate delay, prolongs trials and may force remittals if the appellate court takes a different view. Deferral serves Article 159(2)(b) and (d), preserves the appellate record, and causes no prejudice since production does not foreclose admissibility challenges. Exceptions exist for plain, obvious or urgent objections.
The legal effect of production of a document as an exhibit
Production as an exhibit is not proof of the document and does not foreclose challenge to its admissibility or relevancy; the ultimate determination occurs when the Court retires to decide the facts in issue
Relying on Kenneth Nyaga Mwige v Austin Kiguta and Republic v Mark Lloyd Steveson, a document passes through three stages - marking for identification, production as an exhibit, and proof. Mere admission in evidence does not amount to proof; the Court determines relevance and veracity at the final hearing, considering all evidence on record.
Nature and constitutional foundation of trial objections
A trial objection is a pure question of law raised during trial seeking exclusion of the adversary's proposed evidence, founded on the accused's right under Article 50(2)(k) to adduce and challenge evidence, given effect by section 170 of the Evidence Act
The Court distinguishes preliminary objections, which forestall trial, from trial objections raised during trial without intent to prevent determination on merit. An ideal trial objection is timely, specific, discloses all anchorage grounds, and is constitutionally and statutorily sound; validity of the objection is tried by the Court under section 170.
Legal principles established
#- A trial objection need not be determined instantaneously; the Court may permit production of the objected document as an exhibit and defer determination of the objection to the final decision under section 215 of the CPC, unless the objection is plain and obvious or requires pronto determination
- Mere production of a document as an exhibit does not signify that it has passed the admissibility and/or relevancy test; the challenge remains live until the Court renders itself finally
- A party whose trial objection is overruled retains a continuing or running objection, preserved for the appellate court
- Improper admission or rejection of evidence is not of itself a ground for a new trial or reversal where sufficient evidence independently justifies the decision (section 175, Evidence Act)
Court orders
#- 1.Production of the contested document marked DMFI 48 permitted, complete with cross-examination of the witness producing it
- 2.Determination of the trial objection on DMFI 48 deferred and subsumed into the decision to be rendered under section 215 of the CPC
- 3.The trial objection to remain active and to be among the preliminary questions determined on priority basis before questions of merit
- 4.In respect of DMFI 49, the objection acceded to by the defence; the maker to produce the primary document at the appropriate time
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Original criminal trial jurisdiction; trial objection determined under section 170 of the Evidence Act and sections 210, 211 and 215 of the Criminal Procedure Code, guided by Article 50(2)(k) and 159(2) of the Constitution
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Republic v Gidion alias Sonko & 2 others (Anti-Corruption and Economic Crimes Case 1 of 2020) [2025] KEMC 163 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in the judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kemc/2025/163/eng@2025-07-16
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.