SheriaNet for Android — search and read Kenyan case law from your phone, offline.
Join the beta →

Republic v Titus Ngamau Musila Katitu [2016] KEHC 8296 (KLR)

[2016] KEHC 8296 (KLR) High Court of Kenya
Read PDF
Court
High Court of Kenya
Case number
8296
Citation
[2016] KEHC 8296 (KLR)
Decided
3 November 2016
AI Summary Beta Machine-generated — may contain errors. Not legal advice.
TypeCriminalPostureAppeal from a High Court decisionCoramMuya
Holding

The court held that the rights of the victim do not limit the DPP's control of prosecution and that the court cannot direct the OPDD to provide video link through which the victim's family can testify.

Facts

The prosecution had called 18 witnesses, but the last two witnesses, who were family members of the deceased, were based in Norway and wanted to testify through video link. The prosecution claimed they were not eye witnesses and could only testify on the identification of the body. The defense argued that the witnesses had not applied for witness protection.

Issues

  1. Whether the rights of the victim can limit the DPP's control of prosecution including to stop the same for closing its case before they testify.
  2. Whether the court can direct the OPDD to provide video link through which the victim's family can testify.
  3. Whether the victim's family have made up a case for grant of orders sought.

Reasoning

The court emphasized that the DPP has the powers to institute and continue prosecutions and that the victim's rights are limited to situations where the court is making determinations that affect them directly.

Outcome

Affirmed

Authorities cited

Legislation (2)
  • Victim Protection Act, 2014
  • Constitution of Kenya 2010
Cases cited (2)
  • Republic v Joseph Lentrix Waswa
  • I.P Veronica Gitahi & P.C Issa Mzee vs Republic
Experimental AI summary generated by a language model, not a lawyer. It may contain errors or omissions and must not be relied on for legal decisions — the full judgment below is the authoritative source.
Full judgment 0.2 MB · PDF

Loading judgment…

Cite this case


        
        
      

Share this case