Court reinstates magistrate sacked over wrongful acquittal
A courtroom at the Court of Appeal. The appellate court reinstated a magistrate who was summarily dismissed from service for wrongfully acquitting an accused while reading a judgment on behalf of a colleague. PHOTO / FILE / NATION MEDIA GROUP
What you need to know:
- Mr Pareno, whose troubles began on February 27, 2003 after he was tasked to read the fateful judgment on behalf of a colleague, has been awarded the costs of the protracted litigation.
- The controversial judgment is stated to have been handwritten and Mr Pareno stated that he had difficulty in reading it thus “only outlined the charges facing the accused as set out at the beginning of the judgment and the reading of the last line.”
- He was sacked on August 9, 2003, prompting a legal battle he initially lost at the High Court before moving for an appeal.
The Court of Appeal on Friday reinstated a magistrate who was summarily dismissed from service for wrongfully acquitting an accused while reading a judgment on behalf of a colleague.
The judges held that “a wrong process had been employed to relieve Mr Stephen Pareno from his employment” when the Judicial Service Commission kicked him out of service in September 2003.
They faulted a similar decision reaffirming the sacking at the High Court where the magistrate initially sought relief.
The three-bench jury upheld submissions by lawyer Alphaxard Osoro Mogikoyo, acting for Mr Pareno, who had attacked the process culminating the magistrate’s sacking on grounds that the decision was in breach of the rules of natural justice.
In addition, Mr Pareno, whose troubles began on February 27, 2003 after he was tasked to read the fateful judgment on behalf of a colleague, has been awarded the costs of the protracted litigation both on appeal and at the High Court.
Judges E. M Githinji, R. N Nambuye and A. K Murgor said “the High Court judge had been approached by the appellant for reprieval remedy, namely the faulting of the process by which he was sacked but the judge skewed into other extraneous factors which should not have been given considerable weight at that particular stage.”
HANDWRITTEN JUDGMENT
The controversial judgment is stated to have been handwritten and Mr Pareno stated that he had difficulty in reading it thus “only outlined the charges facing the accused as set out at the beginning of the judgment and the reading of the last line” which culminated into a wrongful acquittal.
He swore an affidavit stating he honestly believed that the acquittal applied to all the charges that the accused faced and on realising that he had committed an error, “moved swiftly through the Senior Principal Magistrate for correction by causing the file to be placed before the resident judge for revision.”
Mr Pareno’s orders for acquittal were then accordingly revised and set aside and substituted with an order for 18-month probation and the concerned parties informed of the reversal through an internal memo dated April 7 2003.
However, the rectification of the error and subsequent notification of the fact did not put the matter to rest, instead it provoked a “notice to show cause” emanating from then-registrar Mr William Ouko.
The registrar claimed in the notice that Mr Pareno’s conduct amounted to professional dishonesty, misconduct and dereliction of duty and his defence before the disciplinary committee was in vain.
He was sacked on August 9, 2003, prompting a legal battle he initially lost at the High Court before moving for an appeal.
“There is merit in the appellant appeal... we therefore set aside the decision of the respondent dismissing the appellant from his employment,” the judges said.
