[2006] KECA 236 (KLR)
The Court of Appeal held that it lacks jurisdiction to admit additional evidence on a second criminal appeal, as only matters of law are open for determination under section 361 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The application to introduce the Occurrence Book as additional evidence would require the court to make...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2006] KECA 236 (KLR)
- Parties
- Appellant: Augustine Mwenda Kiama; Respondent: Republic
- Court
- Court of Appeal
- Court Station
- Court of Appeal at Nyeri
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Criminal Appeal 137 of 2003
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Appeal / Application for Admission of Additional Evidence on Second Appeal
- Outcome
- application dismissed
- Judges
- AM Githinji
- Legal Topics
- Admission of Additional Evidence, Second Appeal Jurisdiction, Criminal Procedure Code Section 361
- Source Language
- en
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Augustine Mwenda Kiama
Appellant
Republic
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Application for Admission of Additional Evidence on Second Appeal
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the Court of Appeal has jurisdiction to admit additional evidence in a second criminal appeal.
- 2 Whether the applicant met the legal threshold for admission of additional evidence at the appellate stage.
- 3 Whether production of the Occurrence Book (O.B.) would affect the outcome of the appeal.
Ratio Decidendi
The Court of Appeal held that it lacks jurisdiction to admit additional evidence on a second criminal appeal, as only matters of law are open for determination under section 361 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The application to introduce the Occurrence Book as additional evidence would require the court to make factual determinations, which is outside its mandate at this stage. Furthermore, even if the court had such jurisdiction, the applicant failed to demonstrate that the evidence could not have been obtained with reasonable diligence at the trial or first appeal, or that it would likely affect the outcome. The facts of the case had already been settled by the trial and first...
Court Disposition
application dismissed
Orders
- The application for production and admission of the Occurrence Book as additional evidence is dismissed.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
35 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF KENYA
AT NYERI
Criminal Appeal 137 of 2003
AUGUSTINE MWENDA KIAMA …………...........................................…………. APPELLANT
AND
REPUBLIC ………………………….…......................................……………… RESPONDENT
(Appeal from a judgment of the High Court of Kenya at Nyeri (Juma & Mitey, JJ.) dated 19th March, 2003
in
H.C.CR.A. NO. 303 OF 2001)
**************************
RULING OF THE COURT
We have before us an application by way of notice of motion expressed to have been brought under “Rules 31 & 42 of the Court of Appeal Rules.” The order that the applicant, Augustine Mwenda Kiama, seeks from this Court is stated as follows:-
“1. That the Honourable court be pleased to call for and receive the Occurrence Book of 1st February, 2001, from Nyeri Police Station, and admit the same as part of the record of appeal in Criminal Appeal No. 137 of 2003, on the following grounds:-
(a) The trial magistrate’s court and the superior court came to a concurrent finding that the applicant was guilty of the offence of robbery after agreeing with the prosecution’s case that the applicant had the ignition key for motor vehicle registration No. KAD 198W on 1st February, 2001, when he went to report at the Nyeri Police Station that the said motor vehicle had been robbed from him.
(b) The information entered in the Occurrence Book on 1st February, 2001, after the applicant reported the robbery of his motor vehicle registration No. KAD 198W would be unadulterated and would be the truth of what was in the possession of the applicant at that time.
(c) This is the last opportunity that the applicant has to argue his appeal and he ought to be granted the order sought.”
When the application came up for hearing before us on 15th May, 2006, Ms. Lucy Mwai, the learned counsel for the applicant, urged us to allow the application as, in her view, it is only production of the Occurrence Book (O.B.) that will determine the truth.
In opposing this application Mr. Orinda, the learned Principal State Counsel, submitted that what the Court was being asked was to transform itself into a Court of facts. It was Mr. Orinda’s submission that what the applicant was seeking was to adduce additional evidence which, in his view, is not within the jurisdiction of this Court.
What is before us is essentially an application for production of the O.B. That is, of course, additional evidence which is sought to be introduced in this second appeal. As we know, only matters of law come for determination on second appeal – see section 361 of the Criminal Procedure Code. By introducing the O.B. as additional evidence that would indeed transform this Court into a court of facts. That would be contrary to section 361 of the Criminal Procedure Code.
Even assuming that we had jurisdiction to receive additional evidence, we do not think the applicant met the requirements for admission of additional evidence. In MZEE WANJIE AND 93 OTHERS VS. A.K. SAIKWA, A.C. KANYARATI, S.W. KIBOGO AND WILLIAM GACHIRINGA (1982-88) 1 KAR 462 it was held:-
“1. Before the Court of Appeal will permit additional evidence to be adduced under Rule 29 it must be shown that it could not have been obtained by reasonable diligence before and during the hearing.
2. It must also be shown that the new evidence would have been likely to have affected the result of the suit.
3. The question of re-appraisal would be reserved for argument at the hearing of the appeal.”
This being a second appeal, it must be taken into account that the facts have been settled by the two courts below. We were referred to our own decision in HENRY KIMATHI V. R. – Criminal Appeal No. 24 of 2002 (unreported) but it should be pointed out that in that decision the appellant had always insisted that the O.B. be produced right from the time of the trial and in the superior court. In the present application, the applicant is asking for the O.B. to be produced in this Court for the first time. That as we have already stated, would amount to taking additional evidence on facts of the case. But this being a second appeal, only matters of law fall for consideration. We cannot deal with matters of facts and that has already been settled by the trial court and the first appellate court.
In view of the foregoing, we find no merit in this application and we order that the same be and is hereby dismissed.
Dated and delivered at Nyeri this 19th day of May, 2006.
P.K. TUNOI
JUDGE OF APPEAL
E.O. O’KUBASU
JUDGE OF APPEAL
E.M. GITHINJI
JUDGE OF APPEAL
I certify that this is a true copy of the original.
DEPUTY REGISTRAR