Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Original judgment

Republic v Joseph Mutua Kimanzi & 2 others

REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT MACHAKOS CRIMINAL CASE NO. 60 OF 2015 REPUBLIC……………………………………PROSECUTOR VERSUS JOSEPH MUTUA KIMANZI……………………….........1ST ACCUSED JOSEPH MUSYOKA……………..…………………………2ND ACCUSED STEPHEN MUTHUI……………………………………..3RD ACCUSED RULING 1. The defence has objected to the production of the identification parade for on the ground that the same was amended to reflect the offence of murder. It is also contended that the procedural requirements for the carrying out of identification parade were not adhered to. 2. The prosecution has conceded to the amendment of the offence reflected in the parade forms. The prosecution’s explanation is that the accused was 3. initially charged with the offence of robbery with violence but a decision was later made that he be charged with the offence of murder. 4. The Force Standing Orders issued by the Commissioner of Police under section 5 of the police Act Cap 5 Laws of Kenya provide for the manner in which an identification parade ought to be carried out. The value of an identification parade as evidence would depreciate if an identification parade is not conducted in accordance with the Force Standing Orders (see example Douglas Kinya Njeri –VS- Republic [2015] eKLR & John Mwangi Kamau [2014]eKLR). 5. The issued raised by the defence counsel in my view dwell on the question of the weight to be attached to the evidence of the identification forms herein. This can best be addressed through cross examination and submissions. The production of the identification parade forms is therefore overruled. Dated, signed and delivered at Machakos this 7th day of December, 2015. B. THURANIRA JADEN 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.