Case Metadata |
|
| Case Number: | Criminal Case 1253 of 1975 |
|---|---|
| Parties: | James Mulama v Republic |
| Date Delivered: | 15 Dec 1975 |
| Case Class: | Criminal |
| Court: | High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts) |
| Case Action: | Judgment |
| Judge(s): | Edward Trevelyan, Chanan Singh |
| Citation: | James Mulama v Republic [1975] eKLR |
| Advocates: | JJ Odhiambo for the Appellant, W Mbaya State Counsel for the Republic. |
| Court Division: | Criminal |
| County: | Nairobi |
| Advocates: | JJ Odhiambo for the Appellant, W Mbaya State Counsel for the Republic. |
| Case Summary: | James Mulama v The Republic High Court, Appellate Side, Nairobi 15th December 1975 Trevelyan & Chanan Singh JJ Criminal Law – conspiracy – acquittal of all accused bar one – conviction of remaining accused quashed on appeal – undesirability of charging conspiracy when specific offence may be charged. Case referred to in judgment: R v Manning (1883) 12 QBD 241, 53 LJMC 85, 51 LT 121. Appeal James Mulama appealed against his conviction and sentence (Criminal Case No 1253 of 1975) at the Senior Resident Magistrate’s Court at Nairobi on two charges of conspiracy. He appealed on the ground that his coaccused had been acquitted. JJ Odhiambo for the Appellant. W Mbaya State Counsel for the Republic. |
| History Advocates: | Both Parties Represented |
| Case Outcome: | Convictions quashed |
| Disclaimer: | The information contained in the above segment is not part of the judicial opinion delivered by the Court. The metadata has been prepared by Kenya Law as a guide in understanding the subject of the judicial opinion. Kenya Law makes no warranties as to the comprehensiveness or accuracy of the information |
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT AT NAIROBI
APPELLATE SIDE
CRIMINAL CASE NO 1253 OF 1975
JAMES MULAMA……………..………. APPELLANT
VERSUS
THE REPUBLIC………………….……….. REPUBLIC
JUDGMENT
This case has occasioned us some concern. The appellant was charged with two counts of conspiracy and the charges were laid as being committed with a named accused and others, but state counsel who does not support the convictions says that the evidence could only point to the appellant and his co-accused having committed the offences and no-one else; so that he was unable to support the appellant’s conviction, his coaccused having been acquitted. With respect, it is unfortunate that it must be so because with specific offences rather than conspiracy charges the situation would no doubt be very different.
If on a charge of conspiracy all the accused but one are acquitted that one has to be acquitted also unless it is charged and proved that someone else not named in the charge has been part of the conspiracy.
That is the law as stated in various cases including R v Manning (1883) 12 QBD 241 to which state counsel drew our attention.
Courts do not look and never have looked kindly at conspiracy charges brought instead of specific offences and this case illustrates the dangers attendant upon the police embarking upon conspiracy charges when specific charges are available. We have no alternative but to allow the appeal, which we do.
Convictions quashed.
Dated and Delivered at Nairobi this 15th Day of December 1975
E. TREVELYAN
………….
JUDGE
CHANAN SINGH
……………..
JUDGE
Please Wait. Searching ...