Republic v Kaiyae (Criminal Case 36 of 2019) [2025] KEHC 19424 (KLR) (2 December 2025) (Ruling) Neutral citation: [2025] KEHC 19424 (KLR) REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT AT KIAMBU CRIMINAL CASE 36 OF 2019 DO CHEPKWONY, J DECEMBER 2, 2025 BETWEEN REPUBLIC ............................................................................................................ STATE AND GRACE WANJIKU KAIYAE ....................................................................... ACCUSED RULING 1. The Accused herein Grace Wanjiku Kaiyae, is charged with the offence of Murder contrary to Section 203 as read with Section 204 of the Penal Code Cap 63 Laws of Kenya. The particulars of offence are that:“ The Accused on the night of 16th August, 2019 and 17th August, 2019 at Gikuni village in Kabete Sub county within Kiambu County murdered Joseph Mwangi Gathungu.” 2. When the matter came up for hearing on 27th October, 2025, the Counsel for the state, M/S Mugambi informed the court that the investigating officer had summoned the witnesses to attend court but they failed to honour the same. She then urged that warrants of arrest be issued to Winnie Wangare, Joyce Mukami and Mary Njeri. 3. The Counsel for the Accused, M/S Kale, objected to the application for adjournment on the basis that the matter is a 2019 matter, which has never taken off for hearing for the reason of there being no witnesses in court. Counsel went on to point out that there was even a time when the suit was to be withdrawn by the prosecution. She also stated that the prosecution has never given any reason why the witnesses can never be traced for bonding to attend court and urged the court not to grant them an adjournment. 4. In rejoinder, Counsel for the state pleaded for a last adjournment in the case and made an undertaking that if the warrants are not executed, the prosecution would close the case. https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2025/19424/eng@2025-12-02 1
page 1 of 3
5. Having listened to both counsel for the parties in their arguments and sentiments on whether or not an adjournment should be granted, I have gone through the record and note that the accused took plea on 11th September, 2019 whereby she pleaded “Not Guilty” and was released on a bond of Kshs. 500,000/ = .The first time the matter came up for hearing was on 4th March, 2020, and the prosecution sought and was granted an adjournment for lack of witnesses. Again, on 4th May, 2022, the same issue was raised and the court adjourned the matter while urging the prosecution to follow up with Investigating Officer in having the witnesses attend court. 6. On 23rd November, 2023, the prosecution applied for an adjournment and pointed out that the witnesses had declined to receive bonds stating that they were not willing to co-operate in the matter. And in its Ruling, the court allowed the application for adjournment and ordered that Summons issue upon the witnesses to attend court as they were the reason the accused was arrested and charged with the offence herein where some one lost their life and the murderer is yet to be established. 7. On 30th January, 2024, Counsel for the state sought last adjournment on the ground that they had not been able to serve the Summons issued by the counsel since the witnessed had turned hostile. The defence requested to know how much time they needed. On perusing the record, the court noted that the Summons had never been taken out for service upon the witnesses and proceeded to direct the Deputy Registrar to facilitate the issuance of the said Summons. 8. On 6th June, 2024, counsel for the State, Mr. Gacharia, indicated that they had had challenges with availing the witnesses he had been informed by the Investigating Officer that the witnesses were available but there had been interference of some kind and sought for Summons to reissue upon them. 9. On 7th October, 2024, the prosecution’s counsel confirmed that the Investigating Officer, Corporal Odhiambo was in court and that confirmed that the witnesses were available. The matter was fixed for hearing on 18th February, 2025 on which day the hearing was adjourned on account of the defence counsel being on maternity leave and witnesses not being in attendance. On 18th June, 2025, the State was ready to proceed with two witnesses but the Defence counsel sought for an adjournment and this is what has precipitated this ruling. 10. The court has gone through the record as enumerated above and notes that several adjournments have been sought and granted by the court on the same reason of there being no witnesses in attendance before court. The court has even is used Summons upon the said witnesses and the same have never been honoured. It will be noted that the court has, on all these occasions been lenient and granted the prosecution an opportunity to have their case prosecuted. 11. As noted on several occasions that this matter has come up before this Court, this is a 2019 matter which has never taken off to the detriment of the accused, the victim, the court and the administration of justice and the court has been gracious to the State on all these occasions and allowed them an opportunity to avail their witnesses. However, noting that the court took out Summons which the prosecution has confirmed were served upon the witnesses, it will be a de-justification for the court to disregard the action by the said witnesses which is in defiance to its orders. In view of this, the court grants an adjournment for purposes of confirming compliance of courts orders by the witnesses in its case. Afterall, court orders are never issued in vain. And non-compliance thereof has to be met with consequences, otherwise parties may take court for granted. Therefore; a. Warrants of Arrest to issue upon Winnie Wangare, Joyce Mukami and Mary Njeri. b. Mention on 3rd December, 2025 to confirm execution thereof. c. Notice to issue upon accused persons’ counsel. https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2025/19424/eng@2025-12-02 2
page 2 of 3
It is so ordered. RULING DELIVERED VIRTUALLY, DATED AND SIGNED AT KIAMBU THIS 2ND DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025. D. O. CHEPKWONY JUDGE In the presence of: Mr. Muriuki counsel for the State No appearance for and by counsel for the accused Accused present Court Assistant – Sakina Martin https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2025/19424/eng@2025-12-02 3
page 3 of 3