In re Inquiring into the Demise of Ada Marmion that Occurred on 31st May 2024 (Inquest E001 of 2025) [2025] KEMC 267 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Lamu court closed an inquest into Ada Marmion's death, ruling that courts shouldn't be asked to re-investigate deaths the police have already resolved.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Questions the Court framed
#The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.
- 1.Whether there is propriety in conducting inquest proceedings into the death of Ada Marmion where the investigation officer has already made findings and the principal suspect is deceased
- 2.Whether requiring the court to conduct an inquest merely to facilitate closure of investigations is a duplication of roles and an abuse of court process
Key legal issues
#Propriety of conducting an inquest where investigations are complete and the suspect is deceased
The court found no propriety in conducting the inquest, as all evidence pointed to one person, now deceased, and the investigating officer had already made findings and recommendations.
The court examined the statutory scheme under sections 387 and 388 of the Criminal Procedure Code, which empowers magistrates to inquire into causes of death at the DPP's instance. It held that the inquest's purpose is to determine the cause of death where causation is clouded in mystery. Here the investigation officer had made findings identifying Paul Lovis, now deceased, as the person last seen with the deceased; conducting an inquest relying on the same statements could yield no different finding.
Duplication of investigative roles between the court and the police/DPP
Requiring the court to conduct an inquest over matters already investigated and closed by the DCI is an abuse of court process and duplication of roles.
The court reasoned that if further investigations were needed, the DPP should have directed the DCI or Inspector General of Police under Article 157 of the Constitution rather than directing the court to conduct an inquiry. The magistrate's statutory functions under sections 387 and 388 had effectively been performed by the DCI, leaving nothing for the court to do. The court endorsed Musyoka J's observations in Manyibe urging legislative reform of the inquest provisions.
Legal principles established
#- An inquest is warranted only where the cause of death is doubtful or shrouded in mystery; where the circumstances are clear and the responsible person known, the suspect should be charged rather than an inquest conducted.
- It is improper to require courts to conduct proceedings as a mere formality to facilitate closure of investigations; the decision whether to prosecute lies with the DPP.
Court orders
#- 1.The inquest file was closed, the court holding there is no propriety in conducting the inquest proceedings
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Sections 387 and 388 of the Criminal Procedure Code (inquest at the instance of the DPP)
Relief refused
#Conduct of the inquest proceedings as urged by the DPP and counsel for the deceased's family
The court found the inquest would duplicate investigations already concluded by the DCI and constitute an abuse of court process
Costs
No costs order made
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.
Flowing from the discussion above, I hold and find that there is no propriety in conducting these inquest proceedings and accordingly I proceed to close the inquest file.
It is in my view an abuse of court process and duplication of roles to ask the court to do what the DCI had already done and there is actually nothing for me as a court to do.
Where the persons responsible for the death are known, there would be no need to conduct an inquiry, the suspects ought to be arrested and arraigned to answer to a charge of either murder or manslaughter, or any other related ofience.
I entirely agree with the findings and observations of the learned judge and I hope that this is a discussion whose time has come and there is need to review the law around Sections 387 and 388 of the Criminal Procedure Code to align with Article 157 of the Constitution.
Issues in the judgment
#The second postmortem date (7th June 2024) precedes the first postmortem date (1st July 2024) as recorded in the quoted investigation report, an internal chronological inconsistency.
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "In re Inquiring into the Demise of Ada Marmion that Occurred on 31st May 2024 (Inquest E001 of 2025) [2025] KEMC 267 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Inquest initiated vide letter from the Director of Public Prosecutions dated 19th August 2025. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kemc/2025/267/eng@2025-11-06
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.