CHARO KATANA KITSAO v REPUBLIC [2007] KECA 466 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Court of Appeal quashed a murder conviction because the judge skipped summarising evidence for assessors, but ordered the accused face a retrial.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Questions the Court framed
#The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.
- 1.Whether the trial Judge's failure to sum up the evidence to the assessors before receiving their opinions rendered the trial a nullity
- 2.Whether, the conviction having been quashed, a retrial should be ordered
Key legal issues
#Effect of failure to sum up to assessors
Although section 322(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code uses the word 'may', summing-up to the assessors has acquired the force of law and is mandatory; the trial Judge here gave no summary of the evidence and no reason for the omission, so the entire trial was a mistrial
The Court reasoned that assessors can only be of use to the court if they make informed opinions, which they can only form upon the court summing up the entire evidence and directing them on issues of law. The practice has been followed for so long that it has acquired the force of law. In the record, the Judge simply requested the assessors' opinions without any written summary, and no special or compelling reason was advanced, so the conviction could not stand.
Whether a retrial should be ordered
Applying the retrial principles, the Court ordered a retrial: the defect was the trial court's error for which the prosecution was not to blame, the recorded evidence might sustain a conviction, and the State assured that witnesses would be available for an early disposal
The Court distinguished the case from Pascal Ouma Ogolo, where retrial was refused for fear witnesses could not be traced, and from Fundi Reuben Ngala. It accepted that the appellant had not enjoyed liberty for close to seven years, but held that weighed against the need for justice — a person having lost his life — and the Principal State Counsel's assurance of witness availability, the interests of justice required a retrial before another competent court.
Legal principles established
#- Summing up to the assessors in a trial before the High Court is mandatory and no longer discretionary; a trial conducted without it, absent a special and compelling reason, is a mistrial
- There must be on record evidence that summing-up to the assessors was undertaken, or a special and compelling reason for its omission
- A retrial should only be ordered where the interests of justice require it, and not where it is likely to cause an injustice to the accused
Court orders
#- 1.Conviction quashed and sentence set aside, the trial having been a mistrial
- 2.Retrial of the appellant ordered before another competent court
- 3.Appellant to be produced before the superior court at Malindi for retrial within fourteen (14) days of the date of the judgment
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
- On appeal from
- High Court of Kenya at Malindi
- H.C.CR.C. No. 4 of 2001
- Jurisdiction invoked
- First appeal to the Court of Appeal against conviction and sentence for murder under the Criminal Procedure Code and Court of Appeal's appellate jurisdiction
Relief refused
#The appellant's submission that no retrial be ordered given his deprivation of liberty for close to seven years
The Court found the interests of justice, the error of the trial court, and the State's assurance of witness availability favoured a retrial
Costs
No order as to costs is recorded in the judgment.
Quotable passages
#Verbatim from the judgment, each located to the page it appears on in the official PDF — so these can be cited and checked directly.
the practice of summing-up to the assessors is a thoroughly sound one and has been followed for so long that it has acquired the force of law
There is no such written summary in the record and no special or compelling reason has been given for failure to do so. That being our view of the matter, we agree that the entire trial was a mistrial. We quash the conviction and set aside the sentence.
The totality of all the above is that we order a retrial of the appellant before another competent court. The appellant will be produced before the superior court at Malindi for his retrial within the next fourteen (14) days of the date hereof. That is the judgment of the Court.
Issues in the judgment
#The judgment is dated and delivered at Mombasa in the closing paragraph, but the cause heading names the Court of Appeal at Nairobi
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "CHARO KATANA KITSAO v REPUBLIC [2007] KECA 466 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2007). Criminal Appeal 269 of 2006. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/2007/466/eng@2007-01-26
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.