Beatrice Wanjiru Kinyua v Republic

Court of Appeal, at Nyeri May 16, 2003

Shah, O’Kubasu & Keiwua JJ A

Criminal Appeal No 42 of 2003

(Appeal from the conviction and sentence of the High Court at Nyeri,

Juma J dated 18 April 2002 in High Court Criminal Case No 24 of 2002)

Evidence – evidence of a minor - child of tender years as a witness – procedure in admitting such evidence.

Criminal Practice and Procedure – defences – alibi defence – duty of the court to consider the defence.

The appellant was convicted in the High Court for the offence of murder. She appealed on the grounds that, the trial judge erred in law and fact in failing to properly direct himself on the defence of alibi raised by the appellant and in failing to warn himself of the danger of admitting the uncorroborated evidence of a minor and on basing a conviction on such evidence.

Held:

1. The young boy witness was examined by the trial judge as to whether he understood the nature of the oath. The judge was satisfied that the child understood the nature of the oath and hence the child gave evidence on oath. The trial judge very properly adopted the correct procedure in such a situation.

2. In summing up to the assessors, the trial judge stated that there was need for corroboration in respect of evidence of a young boy. The trial judge could not be faulted on the issue of corroboration

3. The trial judge had the correct approach on the defence of alibi. He considered the prosecution evidence vis a vis what the appellant and her witness said and in the end was satisfied that the defence of alibi was false.

Appeal dismissed.

Cases

1. Okeno v Republic [1972] EA 32

2. Kolil v R [1959] EA 92

3. Ssentale v Uganda [1968] EA 365

4. Muiruri v Republic [1982-88] 1 KAR 150

Statutes

Penal Code (cap 63) sections 203, 204

Advocates

Mr Nderi for the Appellant.

Criminal Practice and Procedure - appeal – summary rejection of appeal – appellant convicted on uncorroborated evidence of a minor – appeal summarily rejected – when summary rejection of appeal can be invoked.

Criminal Practice and Procedure - appeal – summary rejection of appeal – appellant convicted on uncorroborated evidence of a minor – appeal summarily rejected – when summary rejection of appeal can be invoked.

The appellant was tried and convicted of the offence of incest contrary to section 166 (1) of the Penal Code. The conviction was based on the uncorroborated evidence of a minor. His appeal to the High Court was summarily rejected. He appealed against the summary rejection of the appeal.

Held:

1. The jurisdiction to summarily reject an appeal ought to be invoked in clearest of cases.

2. In this case, the issue of whether there was cogent corroboration of the complainant’s evidence was a matter of mixed law and fact. Similarly, the issue of autrefois acquit was a matter of law and there could well be an argument that the sentence could be reduced.

3. The High Court judge ought to have heard the appellant on the 14 year sentence.

Appeal allowed. Summary rejection of the appeal quashed and direction given that the appeal admitted to hearing.

Cases

No cases referred to.

Statutes

1. Criminal Procedure Code (cap 75) section 352 (2)

2. Penal Code (cap 63) section 166 (1)

3. Evidence Act (cap 80) section 124

4. Public Health Act (cap 242) section 44 (1)

Ngera Kamau Wahome v Republic

Court of Appeal, at Nyeri May 16, 2003

Shah, O’Kubasu & Keiwua JJ A

Criminal Appeal No 61 of 2001

(Appeal from an order of the High Court at Nyeri (Juma, J)

dated 23rd May, 2000 in H C C Cr A No 86 of 2000)

Criminal Practice and Procedure - appeal – summary rejection of appeal – appellant convicted on uncorroborated evidence of a minor – appeal summarily rejected – when summary rejection of appeal can be invoked.

The appellant was tried and convicted of the offence of incest contrary to section 166 (1) of the Penal Code. The conviction was based on the uncorroborated evidence of a minor. His appeal to the High Court was summarily rejected. He appealed against the summary rejection of the appeal.

Held:

1. The jurisdiction to summarily reject an appeal ought to be invoked in clearest of cases.

2. In this case, the issue of whether there was cogent corroboration of the complainant’s evidence was a matter of mixed law and fact. Similarly, the issue of autrefois acquit was a matter of law and there could well be an argument that the sentence could be reduced.

3. The High Court judge ought to have heard the appellant on the 14 year sentence.

Appeal allowed. Summary rejection of the appeal quashed and direction given that the appeal admitted to hearing.

Cases

No cases referred to.

Statutes

1. Criminal Procedure Code (cap 75) section 352 (2)

2. Penal Code (cap 63) section 166 (1)

3. Evidence Act (cap 80) section 124

4. Public Health Act (cap 242) section 44 (1)