The Republic VS Peter Muiruri Wanyoike The Republic VS Peter Muiruri Wanyoike

The accused person in this matter has moved the court to consider to have the trial start de novo. The accused faces a murder charge under Section 203 as read with 204 of the Penal Code.
One witness has so far testified and the reason why the accused wants a hearing denovo is that it would be good to do so in order for the court to get the flow of evidence.
The accused person has not given any other reason for the application.
The prosecution is opposed to a hearing de novo. In her submissions Ms. Njoroge stated that under Section 200 of Criminal Procedure Code an accused person does not enjoy an automatic right to recall witnesses or have the matter start de novo once a new judge takes over proceedings.
Counsel argued that the witness who had already testified would be hard to trace and if this court allows the application for a de novo hearing that is likely to compromise the justice of the matter.
Ms Njoroge further argued that the Accused was represented at the time the sole witness was heard and the defence counsel had cross examined the witness. According to the prosecution counsel if the witness is not recalled the accused is not likely to suffer any prejudice.
The court has taken note of the fact that this case was filed way back on 24^th November 2021.
The matter is just about to celebrate its 4^th year in our shelves. It would be grossly unjust to delay this matter any further by starting it denovo.
The Accused has not given any sufficient reason for the request.
The Constitution under Article 159 requires that justice must be justly and expeditiously dispensed. The intention of parliament in enacting Section 200 Criminal Procedure Code was to provide accused persons who may have genuine concerns about proceedings conducted before another Judge to have an opportunity to raise those concerns with the succeeding judge in a matter and have the court interrogated the issues raised and decides whether it would be in the interests of justice to recall any of the 7 witnesses who had already testified. See Silimia alias ‘Kasim’ -vs- Rep CRC No 026 of 2021 [2025]KEHC 2246.
The right to recall the witnesses is not automatic and an accused person who desires to have a matter heard denovo should be able to demonstrate that if the order is not granted, he stands to suffer prejudice.
The accused person in this matter has not demonstrated how his right to a fair trial is likely to be affected if the witness is not recalled and the matter starts denovo.
The reasons advanced by the prosecution for the court to consider proceeding from where the previous court left reasonable.
If the witness may have relocated as per the Investing Officer, to order a hearing denovo would put the trial in jeopardy since the matter is likely to be delayed further.
The defence has not indicated that they will suffer prejudice should the trail proceed from where the predecessor of this court left. In the circumstances this court finds that the proposal to have the matter start de novo is calculated to cause a further delay in the hearing and determination of the matter.
Consequently, the application to start the hearing afresh is rejected. The hearing shall proceed from where the previous court left. The accused was represented in the earlier proceedings and therefore he is not likely to be prejudiced. The interests of justice will be best served that way considering the Accused person’s right to a fair trial under Art.50 of the constitution and this court’s duty under Article 159 to dispense justice expeditiously. Murder cases in this country have acquired the notoriety of delay. This trend must be stopped and parties must cooperate to ensure that delays in trials become a thing of the past.
It is so ordered.