Republic v Nathif Jama Adan & 6 Others [2020] eKLR Case Summary

Court
High Court of Kenya at Garissa
Category
Criminal
Judge(s)
Hon. C. Kariuki
Judgment Date
October 28, 2020
Country
Kenya
Document Type
PDF
Number of Pages
3

Case Brief: Republic v Nathif Jama Adan & 6 Others [2020] eKLR


1. Case Information:
- Name of the Case: Republic v. Nathif Jama Adan & 6 Others
- Case Number: Criminal Appeals No. 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66 of 2017
- Court: High Court of Kenya at Garissa
- Date Delivered: 28th October 2020
- Category of Law: Criminal
- Judge(s): Hon. C. Kariuki
- Country: Kenya

2. Questions Presented:
The central legal issues the court must resolve include:
- Whether the trial magistrate erred in denying the prosecution's application to withdraw the charges under Section 87(a) of the Criminal Procedure Code.
- Whether the acquittal of the respondents under Section 210 of the Criminal Procedure Code was appropriate given the circumstances of the case.

3. Facts of the Case:
The respondents, Nathif Jama Adan and six others, were charged on June 2, 2016, under the Anti-Corruption and Economic Crimes Act No. 3 of 2003 for various offenses related to a contract valued at Kshs 62,400,000 for ambulance services between the County Government of Garissa and Red Cross E-plus. The respondents pleaded not guilty, and the prosecution presented eleven witnesses. On October 16, 2017, the prosecution sought to withdraw the charges based on a precedent set in a prior Court of Appeal decision that deemed the prosecution by an improperly constituted commission illegal. The trial court ruled on November 8, 2017, to acquit the respondents, leading to the prosecution's appeal.

4. Procedural History:
The case began with charges filed against the respondents, followed by a trial where the prosecution called eleven witnesses. After the prosecution's application to withdraw the charges, the trial court denied this request and acquitted the respondents under Section 210 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The prosecution appealed, arguing that the trial magistrate misapplied the law and usurped their constitutional powers.

5. Analysis:
- Rules: The court examined Section 87(a) of the Criminal Procedure Code, which allows the prosecution to withdraw charges with the court's consent at any time before judgment. Article 157 of the Kenyan Constitution outlines the powers of the Director of Public Prosecutions, including the ability to discontinue criminal proceedings with court permission.
- Case Law: The court referenced the case of *Engineer Michael Sistu Kamau vs. Ethics & Anti-Corruption & 4 Others*, which established that charges brought by an improperly constituted commission are tainted with illegality. The court also cited *Republic v. Leonard Sekento (2019) eKLR*, emphasizing the independence of the Director of Public Prosecutions in exercising prosecutorial discretion.
- Application: The court found that the trial magistrate misapplied the law by denying the prosecution's request to withdraw the case. The magistrate's reasoning, which suggested that allowing withdrawal would prejudice the respondents, was deemed insufficient to override the prosecution's constitutional rights. The court stressed that the likelihood of re-opening the case should not be a barrier to withdrawal under Section 87(a).

6. Conclusion:
The court ruled that the trial magistrate erred in denying the prosecution's application to withdraw the charges, and thus set aside the acquittal under Section 210 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The charges were withdrawn, and the respondents were discharged.

7. Dissent:
There were no dissenting opinions noted in the judgment.

8. Summary:
The High Court of Kenya determined that the trial magistrate improperly denied the prosecution's request to withdraw charges against the respondents, leading to an unjust acquittal. The court emphasized the importance of allowing the prosecution to exercise its constitutional rights without undue interference. The decision reinforces the principle that the prosecution's discretion should be respected, provided it does not contravene justice or the rights of the accused.

Document Summary

Below is the summary preview of this document.

  • Republic-v-Nathif-Jama-Adan--6-Others-[2020]-eKLR-Case-Summary_2699_0.jpg

This is the end of the summary preview.

Related Documents

View all summaries