I have just finished reading the Ruling by G.H. Oduor, CM in Republic vs. JAMES MAINA NG’ANG’A alias Apostle Ng’ang’a & 3 Others (Limuru CM Traffic Case No. 730 of 2015) and I note as follows:
1. Despite clear attempts by the police to subvert and defeat justice, the officers who later took over did an excellent job in unearthing the truth in terms of facts and or the circumstances surrounding the matter and availed substantial evidence to the court.
2. The prosecution did a good job in terms of availing the relevant witnesses and putting forth the relevant and admissible evidence by way of examining the witnesses including eye witnesses (all of whom were under protection) and call data evidence which placed most, if not all, the accused persons at the scene of the crime.
3. The initial trial magistrate erred in law in rejecting the application for DNA samples of the 1st Accused Person and therefore failed in its duty as a court of justice.
4. The trial magistrate almost perfectly comprehended the facts of the case as presented by the prosecution but terribly failed to apply the Law to the Facts.
5. The trial magistrate erroneously attempted to equate the standard of putting an accused person on his defence at section 210 to that of convicting an accused under section 215. While the standard may sometimes be the same in some cases, it’s not always the same in all cases. In the circumstances of this case, the evidence on record was without a doubt sufficient to put at least the 1st Accused – Apostle Ng’ang’a – on his defence.
6. The trial magistrate therefore misinterpreted and by extension misapplied the test in the decision in Ramanlal Trambaklal Bhatt vs. Republic (1957) EA 332 as regards what a prima facie case and ended up setting a standard not known in law.
7. The trial magistrate erred in law as far as she misapplied the decision in Joan Chebichii Sawe vs. Republic (2003) eKLR as far as what amounts to circumstantial evidence and the effect thereof is and ended up reaching a wrong conclusion as far as whether or not any of the accused persons had a case to answer.
8. The trial magistrate, with respect, descended from the seat of an impartial officer into the arena and even went as far as availing arguments for the defence in the Ruling that the accused persons raised neither in crossexamination nor in the submissions.
9. The Ruling does not have any basis nor support in the facts and could not be the result of an analysis thereof and is therefore a sham.
10. The Ruling is a sham and I am embarrassed on behalf of the learned trial magistrate.
11. An appeal against the sham Ruling has 95% chance of success as far as the accused persons or at least the 1st Accused being placed on his defence.