A criminal case in which a chief is alleged to have assaulted a man has been adjourned for the third time after the Investigating Officer failed to appear in court. Kilungu court Senior Resident Magistrate Elizabeth Muiru issued final summons to Inspector Alice Muchigi to appear in court on April 26th to testify in a case where Mr Samson Muoki Joel is accused of giving false information to the police after he went to report an assault case against Kee location Chief Lawrence Mulili Mwau.
While responding to the defence lawyer’s plea for termination of the case,the Magistrate noted that the case had elicited public interest and it was crucial to hear the testimony of the investigating Officer who had visited the scene.
She directed Kilome Police Boss to ensure the investigating officer complied with the orders to testify in court.
Mr Muoki was arrested and charged when he went to report an assault case against the chief at Kilome Police Station.Chief Mulili alleged Mr Muoki destroyed a portion of a road reserve which the chief was repairing together with a group of villagers.Mr Muoki obtained a P3 Form indicating he had been assaulted by the Chief but in a twist of the case he was charged with giving false information to the police.
On Friday,lawyer John Mwendwa representing the accused said there should be no further adjournment as his client wanted the case to be determined expeditiously.
“This is the second time the prosecution is seeking adjournment on grounds that the Investigating Officer is not present. She had been notified and we therefore oppose the adjustment. We pray that you close this case at this stage,” “Mr Mwendwa told the court.
The Investigating Officer has since been transferred from Kilungu to Nyeri.
Earlier the chief had testified that there was no fight between him and Mr Muoki as alleged.He admitted there had been a long-running dispute on the said road which cuts across Joel’s family farm dating back to 2009.
Mr Mulili told the court the road had been demarcated as public, a position disputed by the family. He could not however provide any evidence of the demarcation when asked to do so by the defence lawyer.