[Ruling]-Criminal practice and procedure-disclosure-whether the accused could be obliged to disclose his defence to the prosecution prior to the him being put to his defence-where the prosecution sought to have the defence avail to them particulars of the defences witnesses and any other relevant documents-whether a full disclosure of the defence case would prejudice the rights of the accused-whether disclosure was an element of a fair trial in criminal matters-Constitution of Kenya section 77

Criminal practice and procedure-Robbery with violence-second appeal claim by the appellant that his  identification as Sojpals employee was lacking in corroboration further that the doctrine of recent possession was improperly invoked in absence of any corroborative evidence to the alleged recovery of the complainants properties in the appellants house-where Section 111 of the Evidence Act placed the  burden on appellant to prove that he was not an employee of Sojpal-where stolen items had been recovered in the appellants possession which raised a rebuttable presumption of fact that the appellant was either the thief or guilty receiver- duty  of the appellant to explain his possession of the items -where no explanation was offered -whether in the circumstances the doctrine of recent possession of stolen property applied-whether the appeal was merited-section 119 and Section 143 of the Evidence Act, section 296(2) and 322(2) of the Penal Code

Criminal law - robbery with violence - second appeal against conviction and sentence of death - evidence - identification - whether the evidence of the identification of the appellant was reliable - test to be applied to identification evidence before it can form the basis for a conviction – identification parade- failure to tender identification parade evidence  by the prosecution- dock identification-dock identification worthless and could not be relied on unless it had been preceded by a properly conducted identification parade – insufficient evidence to convict-whether the appeal could be allowed- Penal Code section 296(2)    

[Ruling] CIVIL PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE-enlargement of time-application seeking leave to file appeal out of time-where there was a delay of 50 days-where it was a succession matter- provisions of Succession Act Cap 160 which empower the High Court to hear appeals in disputes in succession cases-whether the application could be allowed-Order 49 rule 5

Criminal Practice and Procedure-robbery with violence – second appeal-appeal against conviction and sentence – appellant sentenced to death –identification-identification and recognition by a single witness-where the court after warning itself on danger of basing a conviction on the evidence of identification by a single witness was satisfied that the identification was without error- conditions of the identification favorable- whether the appeal was merited- sec 296(2) of the Penal Code

...

.

..

.