Peter Kamonjo Njoroge v Republic
The bottom line
#Kenya's Court of Appeal ruled that a disruptive accused person can lawfully be tried in their absence and lost his appeal against a robbery conviction.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the exclusion of the appellant from his trial violated his right to a fair trial under section 77(2)(f) of the retired Constitution
The exclusion was lawful and did not violate the right to a fair trial because the appellant's persistent disruptive and unruly conduct rendered continuation of the proceedings in his presence impracticable.
The trial shall not take place in an accused's absence except with his consent, unless he so conducts himself as to render the continuance of proceedings in his presence impracticable and the court has ordered his removal. The record showed repeated warnings, recorded unruly conduct, and a refusal to participate after being placed on his defence. The magistrate gave the appellant every opportunity, including a trial de novo before a fresh magistrate, and was entitled to proceed in his absence.
Whether the first appellate court's failure to analyse the exclusion issue in detail occasioned a miscarriage of justice
No miscarriage of justice occurred; the Court of Appeal itself examined the record and found both courts below properly analysed the evidence and made proper concurrent findings.
Although the first appellate court did not examine the exclusion issue in detail (it had not been properly raised in the memorandum of appeal before it), this Court considered the matter itself. Even without the appellant's defence, the evidence supported conviction; concurrent findings of fact stood unchallenged on a second appeal confined to law.
Legal principles established
#- An accused person whose conduct renders the continuation of proceedings in his presence impracticable may be removed and tried in his absence under section 77(2)(f) of the retired Constitution, and cannot later complain of exclusion caused by his own misconduct.
- On a second appeal under section 361 of the Criminal Procedure Code, the Court of Appeal is confined to matters of law and will not interfere with concurrent findings of fact of the two courts below.
Court orders
#- 1.The appeal is dismissed in its entirety
- 2.Both the conviction and the sentence of death as imposed by the trial court and upheld by the High Court are upheld
- On appeal from
- High Court of Kenya at Nairobi
- H.C. CR. A No. 557 of 2009
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Section 361(1)(a) of the Criminal Procedure Code (second appeal confined to matters of law)
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Peter Kamonjo Njoroge v Republic", Case Analysis (2019). Criminal Appeal No. 5 of 2015. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/2019/984/eng@2019-02-08
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.