PLEA OF GUILT

Juma Ochieng supra, it was ruled that, “as has been said before by this court

before convicting on any such plea, if it is highly desirable not only that every

constituent of the charge should be explained to the accused, but that he should

be required to admit or deny every such constituent”. Where an accused intends

to plead guilty/nolo contendere the court thinks he is pleading guilty problems

arise which may affect the administration of justice if the court is not scrupulous

enough in recording the plea. In the first instance on incorrect plea of guilty could

mean injustice to the accused person himself on the other than, a criminal who

should be serving his term of imprisonment after a conviction on his own

admission for his part.

Plea of not guilty

Republic v. Kamau & Another [2015] eKLR. In this case, the accused persons

pleaded not guilty to charges of robbery with violence. The case involved complex

legal arguments and evidentiary issues, and the court's ruling provided important

guidance on the standards of proof required for a conviction, the role of the

prosecution in proving guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, and the rights of the

accused to maintain their plea of not guilty throughout the trial process.
 Change of plea.

Kamundi v R where it was held that, whereas, there are no provisions regarding

change of plea, there are equally no provisions to prevent a change of plea before

the court becomes “functus officio”. The court becomes functus officio when it

has determined a case by passing a sentence thus lacks power to re-open the case

on its own motion or on application by the prosecution or the defense. The

magistrate’s power to allow amendments including pleas only exist during trial,

before conviction and before the court becomes functus officio.