IN THE COURT OF APPEAL

 AT MALINDI

(CORAM: NAMBUYE, OKWENGU & KIAGE JJ.A)

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 31 OF 2012.

BETWEEN

CHARO KARISA KATANA...............................APPELLANT

AND

REPUBLIC..................................................RESPONDENT

(Appeal from the High Court of Kenya at Malindi (Meoli & Tuiyott JJ.)

dated 13^th  March, 2012

in

H.C.CR.A NO. 119 OF 2010

******************

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

The appellant CHARO KARISA KATANA appeals to  this  Court against the  dismissal of his  first  appeal to  the  High  Court challenging his  conviction and  sentence on  a charge of robbery with  violence.  The  offence  was  alleged  to have  occurred on  14.5.08 when  he,  while  armed with  a  dangerous weapon, namely a panga, robbed one SAFARI KOI NDUNDI (PW1) of some  Kshs.  4,000 and  used  actual violence in the  process.

The grounds upon which the appellant appeals were apparently filed  by himself  while  in  custody under sentence of death. The said grounds are not clearly  formulated but  we glean  from  them  the following points of complaint;

a)  That the charge sheet did  not  specifically establish  the  time  of  the offence.

b)  That the evidence by a single  identifying witness in difficult  conditions was not  treated with  the  requisite degree  of caution.

c)  The  injuries allegedly suffered were  not  established to  the  required standard.

d)  The evidence did not reach the  requisite  threshhold  some two witnesses having failed  to appear when recalled  for  further cross­ examination.

e)  The appellant's defence including that in  the  nature of an alibi  was not  properly considered.

Mr. Katsoleh, learned counsel appearing for the  appellant in this appeal appeared  to  compress all  these  grounds into one   namely that  the learned Judges (Tuiyot & Meoli JJ.) of the  first  appellate court failed  to re-evaluate the whole  evidence. They  thereby failed  to note  and  make appropriate conclusions from the prosecutions  failure  to  produce  medical evidence in   proof  of  the alleged  injuries. Counsel further contended that on a proper evaluation of the evidence, theft  of Kshs.4,000 was  not  established as PW1  did  not  have  the money in  the  first  place. Counsel concluded that the  only  evidence before  the courts below  regarding the  alleged  robbery was  that of PW1  and   it  was  not sufficient to found a safe or proper conviction.'

In response to these submissions Mr. Oyiembo, the  Assistant Director of Public  Prosecutions was  content with  simply stating that all the  ingredients  of the offence charged were present. He urged  us to dismiss the  appeal.

This  being  a second appeal, our  jurisdiction is circumscribed by Section 361(1) of the  Criminal Procedure Code in explicit  terms; "The Court of Appeal shall not  hear an  appeal ...on a matter of fact" against a decision of the High Court in its appellate jurisdiction. Our  jurisdiction is confined to matters of law only.  As  such, we  pay  due   respect to  concurrent  findings of the  two  courts below  and  are slow  to  interfere  therewith. See   M' RIUNGU Vs.  REPUBLIC [1983]  KLR 455;  KOMORA Vs.  REPUBLIC [1983]  583. The approach the Court of Appeal  takes was  stated in  NJERI Vs. REPUBLIC [1981] KLR 156  thus (at p

158);

"On a second appeal this Court  is concerned only with points of   law.   Once  it  is established that  there was some  evidence to  support a conviction, this Court   will not  on  a second appeal examine the  sufficiency of that evidence .... It is only if a conviction is based on no evidence or  if  the   courts below have   misapprehended the evidence or misdirected themselves in relation thereto, that  a  question of   law   arises  on   a  second appeal"

It is also  a question of law when  the  complaint by an  appellant, as was urged  by  Mr.  Katsoleh  before  us, is  that the   first   appellate court has  not discharged  its  duty  to  analyze, re-assess,  and  re-evaluate all  the evidence before  the  trial  court before forming its own independent opinion as to the  guilt or otherwise of the  appellant. This is a duty the  High Court had  and  which  the appellant was  entitled to  expect. See  PANDYA Vs.  REPUBLIC [1957] EA 336 and  OKENO Vs. REPUBLIC [1972]  EA 32.

Upon  our   perusal of  the record, and with due respect to  the  learned Judges, we are  not  satisfied that they  discharged that duty satisfactorily. Had they done so, they  would have found  that there  were certain gaps, inconsistencies and  contradictions in  the  prosecutions case that rendered the conviction of  the appellant  unsafe. We note for instance that  the learned Judges stated this  of the  evidence;

"In total four (4) witnesses testified and  the  facts do  not present any difficulty."

That  sweeping and  determinative statement is not  borne by the  record. The witnesses who  testified for the  prosecution were  originally three. They  were the  complainant  (PW1); his  wife  PATE  JUSTIN (PW2),  who was not  at the scene and  P.C BEN WAFULA  (PW3), who did  some  kind  of investigation of the case. There was  a twist  in  the  case  however in  that after  numerous pleas and orders that he  be  supplied with  witness statements, the  appellant finally  got them after  these witnesses had  testified. He thereupon successfully applied on 1.10.09 for those witnesses to be recalled for further cross-examination. In the end,  however, and after many adjournments,  it  is  only  the  complainant,  by that time  serving a jail  term  for  a sexual offence,  actually appeared and was further  cross-examined. On 18.5.10 the   prosecutor  informed the court that PW2 had since relocated to  some unknown  destination  and could  not be traced.No  explanation  was   given  why  PW3,  also   ordered  recalled, did   not appear for the  further cross-examination.

Had the learned Judges carefully evaluated and  analyzed the   record, they  would  have concluded that the  evidence properly and fully cross examined was that of  PW1 only. They would  also have noted that  by  the time the prosecutor closed  his  case on  18.5.10 without objection from  the  appellant, the appellant had   complained about the inordinate length of the trial   while   he languished in  custody. They  would  not  have  made the  rather cursory finding that the  appellant had  waived  his  right to insist that the  other two  witnesses be recalled. He had  in fact  previously insisted in vain.

The  learned Judges would  also  have  viewed  the  prosecution's failure to produce medical evidence of PW1 's injuries more  seriously than they  did.  The record shows a serious failure by PW1  and  the  prosecution to have  the  P3 filled in  not  only  prior  to the  commencement of the  trial  but  for the  entire two years it  lasted notwithstanding their being  alive  to  that omission and   promises to deal  with  it that are  on  record. The  P3 Form  would  have  been  important in this particular case  because the  appellant's case was  that the  complainant received his  injuries elsewhere in  the  course of  the  complainant's criminal activities. The learned Judges did  not  adequately analyze this aspect of the  case and that amounted to a misdirection.

The  appellant's other complaint, which  still reflects the learned Judge's failure  to properly and exhaustively analyze and  re-evaluate  the   evidence, relates to the  prosecution's failure to call  the  mason (‘fundi’)  that the  appellant had  allegedly gone  to visit  the  evening in  question and who  alone would  have confirmed whether  or not the appellant did  in  fact   have some Kshs..  4,000 allegedly robbed  him. It is on record that  at  5.00pm of  that  evening the appellant had met the complainant who  gave  him  some  Kshs. 50  and declared that he  had  no money. PW1 testified that  he  in  fact  did  have some money which he  wanted to give the  fundi  but  the  latter told  him  to  pay  the  next  day. That fundi, who  is unnamed, would have  been  an important witness given  the sequence of events as recounted by PW1  when he  was  recalled for  cross examination;

"Offence committed  at Idsowe Offence was on  14.5.08. I was from  my fundi,s home. I met  you earlier when I was going  to see  the  fundi. We  met  at 5pm.  I told you  that I had   no  cash. You  had   asked for  Kshs. 100 and   I gave you  Kshs. 50. I told you I was going  to  pay  the  fundi .... You even  told the  fundi  that you  wanted to see  me.  The fundi told you not  to get  into his  house.... ,,

It appears to  us that far   from  forming a  firm basis for  an assured conviction of  the  appellant, the  evidence of  the  complainant,  which was  the only eye witness evidence, raised more  questions than answers

The  evidence on  record was  to all intents and purposes inadequate, or barely adequate at best, and the failure of  the   prosecution to  call  the fundi without any explanation being  offered  for  such failure, ought to have  invited the  inference that his  evidence would have been adverse to  the prosecution had  it  been  tendered in  court. See BUKENYA & OTHERS Vs. UGANDA [1972] EA 594. It little helps that PW2, when she first  testified, told  the  court that PW1 had reported to her an assault by  the   appellant without making any mention of loss  of money.

The totality of the matters we have raised herein is that  the appellant's complaints are well-founded. His conviction was not based on evidence  and there were sufficient gaps to leave reasonable doubts  as to his guilt. Those doubts ought to have  been  resolved  in his favour and the High Court, as a first appellate court, would have discovered them had it conducted  a thorough and exhaustive analysis.

The upshot  is that  this  appeal  succeeds. The appellant's conviction is quashed and the  sentence of death  imposed  on him  set aside. He shall be set at liberty  forthwith unless otherwise  lawfully  held.

Dated and delivered at Malindi this 20^th day of February, 2014.

R.N.NAMBUYE

...................................

JUDGE OF APPEAL

H.M.OKWENGU

............................................

JUDGE OF APPEAL

P.0. KIAGE

.........................................

JUDGE OF APPEAL

I certify that this is a true copy

DEPUTY REGISTAR