No. 108/2013 REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT MACHAKOS REVISION CASE NO. 19 OF 2013 REPUBLIC ………………………………………....PROSECUTION VERSUS MUTUKU MWATHA……………………………........ ACCUSED CONFIRMATION ORDER 1. This file has been placed before me by the Deputy Registrar, Ms Rose Makungu for purposes of satisfying myself with the legality of proceedings and confirmation of the order made by the Lower Court. 2. Acting pursuant to the provisions of Section 167(1) (a) of the Criminal Procedure Act, it is apparent that the case emanates from a retrial conducted by Hon. H.M. Ng’ang’a, Resident Magistrate. The lower court was of the opinion that evidence adduced would justify a conviction. 3. I have perused the proceedings and judgement thereof. Per the report filed by the Psychiatrist, Dr Munga Edgar, the accused suffers from a condition characterised by a sub-normal level of intelligence and the inability to adequately take care of himself. The condition though not treatable could be managed to ensure he is a useful member of the society. He opined that the accused was not able to follow proceedings. 4. I have also carefully considered the evidence adduced in favour of the prosecution’s case which was overwhelming. 5. Being significantly below average, mental functioning is not being insane. I am therefore satisfied that the Lower Court was justified in reaching a conclusion to have the accused detained at the President’s pleasure. Consequently, I do confirm the orders made. 6. The accused’s actual place of detention shall be determined by the President pursuant to Section 167(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code. 7. It is so ordered. DATED, SIGNED and DELIVERED at MACHAKOS this 23RD day of OCTOBER, 2013. L.N. MUTENDE JUDGE
A note on accuracy. These pages are generated automatically from our AI-written case briefs and have not been checked by a lawyer. Case titles and citations come from Kenya Law; the counts, topics, propositions and “treatment” labels are derived from the briefs and can be incomplete or wrong. Use them as a research aid and always read the original judgment before relying on anything here. This is not legal advice.