[1981] KECA 29 (KLR)
The Court of Appeal held that the High Court erred in summarily rejecting the appellant's appeal because the memorandum of appeal raised both points of law and fact that warranted a hearing in open court. However, upon its own evaluation of the evidence, the Court of Appeal found that the prosecution had established...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [1981] KECA 29 (KLR)
- Parties
- Appellant: James Obiri; Respondent: Republic
- Court
- Court of Appeal
- Court Station
- Court of Appeal at Kisumu
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Criminal Appeal 58 of 1981
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Appeal / Second Appeal From Summary Rejection of Appeal by High Court
- Outcome
- appeal dismissed
- Legal Topics
- Summary Rejection of Appeal, Burden of Proof, Accomplice Evidence, Evaluation of Evidence
- 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
James Obiri
Appellant
Republic
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Second Appeal From Summary Rejection of Appeal by High Court
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the High Court erred in summarily rejecting the appellant's appeal without a hearing despite points of law and fact being raised.
- 2 Whether the conviction of the appellant was supported by sufficient evidence.
- 3 Whether the sentence imposed was excessive.
Ratio Decidendi
The Court of Appeal held that the High Court erred in summarily rejecting the appellant's appeal because the memorandum of appeal raised both points of law and fact that warranted a hearing in open court. However, upon its own evaluation of the evidence, the Court of Appeal found that the prosecution had established the appellant's involvement in the theft beyond reasonable doubt. The appellant's actions, including hiring the vehicle used to transport the stolen maize and attempting to bribe the clerk, were sufficient to support the conviction. The sentence imposed was not excessive. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed.
Court Disposition
appeal dismissed
Orders
- The appeal is dismissed.
- The conviction and sentence are upheld.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
32 paragraphs
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL
AT KISUMU
( Coram: Madan, Miller & Potter JJA )
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 58 OF 1981
BETWEEN
JAMES OBIRI......................................................................APPELLANT
AND
REPUBLIC.....................................................................RESPONDENT
JUDGMENT
Madan JAThis is a second appeal. The appellant was convicted by the Senior Resident Magistrate, Kisii, of stealing 130 packets of hybrid maize, the property of Kenya Farmers Association, Kisii. His appeal to the High Court was summarily rejected under Section 352(2), Criminal Procedure Code. There were three accused in the trial before the magistrate.
The appellant’s memorandum of appeal filed on his behalf by his advocates in the High Court, listed eight grounds of appeal. (a) that there was no evidence connecting the appellant with the maize produced in court, therefore there was no proper evidence to support the appellant’s conviction; (b) that there was no corroboration of the evidence of PW 2 and PW 3; (c) that the evidence of one of the accused was accomplice evidence to be treated with caution; (d) that the burden of proof was shifted to the appellant; (e) the magistrate’s judgment was on matters not on record; (f) the sentence of three years imprisonment was severe.
The memorandum of appeal to us complains about the summary rejection of the appeal by the High Court because there were points of law raised in the contents of the memorandum of appeal filed in the High Court by the appellant’s advocates, which could only be determined on a hearing; that where an appellant is represented by counsel it is in the interests of justice to hear the appeal so that counsel may raise such points of law and fact which appear in the interests of the appellant.
Generally speaking, we would say that the power to summarily reject a criminal appeal conferred by Section 352(2) should be very rarely exercised, that is to say only in the clearest of cases, e.g. where there was an unequivocal plea of guilty to the charge by the accused himself. Human nature being what it is, an appellant whose appeal is summarily rejected must feel, even if unjustifiably, that justice has been denied him.
We consider that the learned judge erred in summarily rejecting the appellant’s appeal. The memorandum of appeal before him raised both points of law and fact upon which the appellant’s advocate should have been heard in open court.
Once again, we commend the following passage from the judgment in Wakelin v Rex[1951] 18 EACA, 185 at p 187:
“If the object of the section is to save time the present case is a good example of how easily the object can be defeated. Furthermore, we should have thought, that where an appeal is brought either against conviction or sentence, when on the face of it the appeal appears frivolous or without merit, the appeal could be disposed of just as expectiously by two judges or one judge, as the case may be, sitting in open court, as by a single judge perusing the record in his Chambers.”
We have evaluated the evidence in the case against the appellant for ourselves, the evidence established beyond reasonable doubt that he was a party to theft of the maize in collaboration with the storekeeper who was the first accused in the magistrate’s court. The stolen maize was seen by the manager’s clerk in a vehicle which the appellant had hired to transport it. When asked to produce a receipt authorising him to have the maize on the vehicle, he attempted to bribe the clerk and asked him to help him. The appellant made an unsworn statement in which he denied knowing anything about the maize. The third accused (who was acquitted) was the driver of the vehicle who merely said that his vehicle had been hired by the appellant to transport the maize. He was in no way an accomplice. At no time did the magistrate overlook that the burden lay upon the prosecution to prove the case against the appellant.
We see no merit in the appeal. The sentence was not excessive. The appeal is ordered to be dismissed.
As Millerand Potter JJAagree, it is so ordered.
Dated and Delivered at Kisumu this 30th day of November 1981.
C.B.MADAN
..................................
JUDGE OF APPEAL
C.H.E.MILLER
..................................
JUDGE OF APPEAL
K.D.POTTER
..................................
JUDGE OF APPEAL
I certify that this is a true copy of the
original.
DEPUTY REGISTRAR