In re Public Inquest into the Death of Wawire (Inquest E003 of 2025) [2026] KEMC 609 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Bungoma court found a road accident victim died of a head injury, but blamed sloppy prosecution and ordered prosecutors to bring back missing witnesses before anyone can be held responsible.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Scope of an inquest under section 386 of the Criminal Procedure Code
The court's powers in an inquest are to establish the cause of death and whether the evidence supports criminal culpability by some known or unknown person.
The court relied on authority explaining that an inquest is not a proceeding inter partes but part of an investigative process to set the public mind at rest. It accordingly sits as an investigator with power to carry out further investigations, and framed the issues as cause of death and possible criminal culpability.
Evidential value of testimony by a police officer who did not investigate the accident
Such testimony, and any OB extract or police document on the circumstances of the accident, is inadmissible hearsay.
IW1 did not visit the scene and testified on behalf of the investigating officer who had been transferred. Citing Dikir & another v Kimary, the court held that reports produced by an officer who did not investigate amount to hearsay and cannot prove how the accident occurred, and that blameworthiness remarks are inadmissible opinion.
Whether criminal culpability was established
The evidence was barely adequate to make a finding on criminal culpability; no culpability finding was made.
The sketch plan did not show the lorry's position before or after the accident; the state failed to call the investigating officer, the pillion passenger and the lorry driver. The court found the state conducted the inquest casually, in breach of the public trust placed on it, and remitted the file to the ODPP to avail all available witnesses.
Legal principles established
#- A court conducting an inquest under section 386 of the Criminal Procedure Code sits as an investigator, not as a silent umpire, and may carry out further investigations into the circumstances of the death.
- Evidence of the circumstances of an accident given by a police officer who did not investigate it, including OB extracts, is inadmissible hearsay.
Court orders
#- 1.Finding that the deceased died as a result of a severe head injury from a crush injury to the head arising from the road traffic accident
- 2.Finding that the evidence on record is barely adequate to make a finding on criminal culpability
- 3.The inquest file be remitted back to the ODPP to cause the attendance of all available witnesses capable of unravelling the circumstances under which the deceased died
- 4.The ODPP is at liberty to reopen this inquest file per section 388(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code for further action
- 5.This inquest file is hereby closed as per section 387(5) of the Criminal Procedure Code, for now
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Section 386 of the Criminal Procedure Code
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "In re Public Inquest into the Death of Wawire (Inquest E003 of 2025) [2026] KEMC 609 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). Not stated in the judgment (inquest file, Bungoma). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kemc/2026/609/eng@2026-07-27
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.