Appeal-criminal law-burglary;stealing-conviction-where the appellant had claimed ownership of the goods allegedly stolen and the prosecution did not adduce better evidence proving ownership by the complainants-whether conviction on the basis of such evidence was safe-Penal Code (cap.63),sections 304(2) and 279(b)

Criminal law - and stealing contrary to Section 304(2) and 279(b) of the Penal Code - accused person convicted and sentenced to imprisonment for two and a half years with two strokes of corporal punishment (the cane) - appeal - whether there was sufficient evidence to sustain the conviction - whether the sentence was harsh.

Criminal law - assault causing actual bodily harm contrary to Section 251 and malicious damage to property contrary to Section 339(1) of the Penal Code - appeal against conviction and sentences of fines - whether the first count covered sufficiently all that happened during the assault so that count two ought not to have been included.

Criminal Law-Burglary and Stealing-where there are inconsistencies in the prosecution evidence-where those claiming ownership of the stolen goods did not provide proof of  ownership-whether a conviction based on such circumstances was safe-Penal Code, Sections 304 (2) and 279(b)

Criminal law - burglary and stealing contrary to Section 304(2) and Section 279(b) of the Penal Code - accused person convicted - alternative count of handling stolen goods contrary to Section 322(2) of the Penal Code - accused convicted and sentenced - appeal - EVIDENCE - whether the prosecution evidence was sufficient to support the conviction

Appeal-criminal appeal-robbery with violence-where the appellant had been convicted on the evidence of a single identifying witness whose identification was made at 6.30 p.m when darkness had been ensuing-whether it was safe for the learned trial magistrate to have relied on the evidence of this witness in arriving at conviction and sentence-Penal Code (cap.63),section 296(2)

Appeal-criminal appeal-robbery with violence-where the trial prosecutor was not qualified to prosecute within the terms of section 85(2) of the criminal procedure code and the prosecution have not asked for a retrial-whether that rendered the appellants trials a nullity-Penal Code (cap.63),section 296(2)

Appeal-criminal appeal-robbery with violence-where the trial prosecutor was not qualified within the meaning of section 85(2) of the criminal procedure code and the prosecution asks for a retrial on the grounds of there being sufficient evidence-whether a retrial should be granted-Penal Code (cap.63),section 296(2)-EVIDENCE-where the prosecution relied heavily on confessions obtained from the accused in custody after amendments making them inadmissible-whether such evidence shall be admissible if a retrial is ordered

Appeal-criminal law-robbery with violence; attempted robbery with violence-charges-substitution of charges-whether the trial magistrate had the power to substitute charges during trial-Penal Code (cap.63),Sections 296(2) and 297(2)-EVIDENCE-identification-the reliability of dock identification

Appeal-criminal law-robbery with violence-prosecution-where the trial prosecutor was not qualified to prosecute in terms of section 85(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code (cap.75)-whether it renders the whole trial a nullity-Penal Code (cap.63),section 296(2)