Republic v Priscilla Cherono Chebet & 2 others

REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT NAIROBI CRIMINAL CASE NO.65 OF 2011 REPUBLIC.....................................................................PROSECUTOR VERSUS PRISCILLA CHERONO CHEBET……………………..1ST ACCUSED EMMY JEPKOSGEY CHUMO…………………………2ND ACCUSED JOSEPHINE CHELEL…………………………………..3RD ACCUSED RULING 1. This Ruling is in respect of trial within trial in this case. The trial within trial arose from the objection raised by the defence to the production of the confession statements purported to have been taken from the 1st and 2nd accused. The objection arose in the course of the testimony of No. 218745 SSP William Sakali Nangulu, (PW4). He told the court that he recorded confession statements from the 1 st and 2nd accused. The defence objected to the statements on grounds that the same were not admissible. The court stepped down the witness and ordered a trial within trial to test the admissibility of the statements in question. 2. The prosecution called 3 witnesses. No. 56274,PC Jairus Mbondo testified as PW1. His testimony was that he arrested the 3 accused from their residence on 23 rd August 2011 and handed them over to PC Mulatya. PW2 was No. 235074 Inspector Lawrence Mulatya. He told the court that he was the investigating officer in the case and that on 25 th August 2011 the 1st and 2nd accused required to see the D.C.I.O. He made arrangements for each to see the D.C.I.O. He was not present in the D.C.I.O’s office when the accused gave their statements. 3. No. 218745 SSP William Nangulu testified as PW3. He was the recording officer. He testified that while in his office on 24th August 2011, Inspector Mulatya (PW2) informed him that 2 suspects being the 1st and 2nd accused wanted to give him some information. He first attended to the 1st accused Priscilla. He cautioned her and informed her of her rights. She proceeded to give her statement. At the end of the recording session she confirmed and appended her signature. He followed the same procedure for the 2 nd accused. 4. At the close of the prosecution case, the court invited parties to make submissions. The gist of the prosecution’s submission is that the statements conformed to the law while defence maintained that there were breaches of the rules which rendered the statements inadmissible. 5. I have carefully considered the testimony of the 3 prosecution witnesses and the submissions now on record. I find that prosecution has made out a prima facie case warranting the 1 st and 2nd accused to be

page 1 of 2