Migot V RepublicKLR
|Criminal Appeal No 67 of 1991||03 Dec 1991|
Riaga Samuel Cornelius Omolo, Abdul Majid Cockar, John Mwangi Gachuhi
Court of Appeal at Kisumu
Migot v Republic
Migot v RepublicKLR
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
Migot v Republic
Court of Appeal, at Kisumu
December 3, 1991
Gachuhi, Cockar JJ A & Omolo Ag JA
Criminal Appeal No 67 of 1991
(Appeal from a Judgment of the High Court of Kenya at Kisumu (Khamoni J)
dated 14/6/1991 in Criminal Appeal No 162 of 1990)
Criminal Practice and Procedure – retrial – whether an order for retrial prejudicial to the appellant – section 200 (4) Criminal Procedure Code.
The appellant, whose trial was commenced by one magistrate but concluded by another under section 200 of the Criminal Procedure Code, was convicted of handling stolen property and jailed for six years. He appealed to the High Court which found that the last trial magistrate had contravened section 200 of the Criminal Procedure Code by failing to explain to the accused the import of the section. The learned judge thus proceeded to allow the appeal, quashed the conviction, set aside the sentence and ordered the release of the appellant. The Court further ordered the retrial of the appellant under section 204 of the Criminal Procedure Code.
The appellant lodged a second appeal on grounds inter alia that a retrial would prejudice him and that it would enable the prosecution to call further evidence .
1. Subsection 4 of section 200 of the Criminal Procedure Code empowers the High Court to order a re-trial
2. The appellants fear that a retrial would give the prosecution an opportunity to fill gaps left during the previous trial by calling further evidence could be countered during the retrial.
No cases referred to.
1. Penal Code (cap 63) section 296 (2)
2. Criminal Procedure Code (cap 75) section 200(4)