[1987] KEHC 76 (KLR)
The court found that the conviction of the 1st appellant was unsafe because the only evidence implicating him was from an accomplice who was also a minor, and this evidence was not corroborated as required by law. Therefore, the conviction and sentence against the 1st appellant were quashed. In contrast, the 2nd...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [1987] KEHC 76 (KLR)
- Parties
- Appellant: Kimanzi Maseki; Appellant: Richard Juma Musyoka; Respondent: Republic
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Machakos
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Criminal Appeal 147 of 1987
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Appeal / Judgment
- Outcome
- 1st appellant's conviction quashed and sentence set aside; 2nd appellant's appeal dismissed and conviction and sentence upheld.
- Judges
- ENA Torgbor
- Legal Topics
- Attempted Robbery, Identification Evidence, Accomplice Testimony, Corroboration Requirements
- 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
Kimanzi Maseki
Appellant
Richard Juma Musyoka
Appellant
Republic
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the identification of the 1st appellant as a perpetrator of the attempted robbery was satisfactory and corroborated.
- 2 Whether the conviction of the 2nd appellant for attempted robbery was supported by sufficient and credible evidence.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the conviction of the 1st appellant was unsafe because the only evidence implicating him was from an accomplice who was also a minor, and this evidence was not corroborated as required by law. Therefore, the conviction and sentence against the 1st appellant were quashed. In contrast, the 2nd appellant was satisfactorily identified by the complainant, who knew him beforehand and recognized him during the attempted robbery by torchlight. The complainant's explanation for the delay in naming the 2nd appellant to the police was accepted as reasonable. The court found the evidence against the 2nd appellant credible and upheld both his conviction and sentence, considering...
Court Disposition
1st appellant's conviction quashed and sentence set aside; 2nd appellant's appeal dismissed and conviction and sentence upheld.
Orders
- The conviction and sentence against Kimanzi Maseki (1st appellant) are quashed and set aside.
- Kimanzi Maseki is to be released forthwith unless otherwise lawfully held.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
19 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA
AT MACHAKOS
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO 147 OF 1987
KIMANZI MASEKI .............................................1ST APPELLANT
RICHARD JUMA MUSYOKA .............................2ND APPELLANT
VERSUS
REPUBLIC……….....................................…….…… RESPONDENT
JUDGMENT
August 18, 1987Torgbor Jdelivred the following Judgment.
The appellants Kimanzi Maseki (1st appellant) and Richard Juma Musyoka (2nd appellant) were convicted for attempted robbery and sentenced each to 2 years imprisonment plus one stroke of the cane and police supervision for 5 years after completion of sentence.
I have considered the grounds of appeal filed by both appellants and the record of the evidence. I am of the view that the 1st appellant was not satisfactorily identified as one of the persons who attempted to rob the complainant. The complainant did not identify the 1st appellant and the only evidence of the identification of the 1st appellant was that of PW 2 who was an accomplice and also a minor so that his evidence needed corroboration in law which corroboration was lacking. In the circumstances I do not consider the conviction of the 1st appellant safe and it is therefore and quashed and the sentence imposed on him is set aside. The appellant Kimanzi Maseki is therefore to be released forthwith unless otherwise lawfully held.
The 2nd appellant was recognized and stabbed by the complainant during the attempted robbery. The complainant knew the 2nd appellant before hand and recognized him by the light of a torch that flashed on to the 2nd appellant’s face at the time of the attempted robbery. The complainant did not immediately give the name or identity of the 2nd appellant to the police when he recognized the incident to them on February 9, 1987 but he explained this by saying that he did not want to alert the appellant. I am satisfied with the explanation he gave. Some consistencies as to his stabbing the 2nd appellant is lent to his story by PW 6 and it seems that if the complainant did not know the name of the 2nd appellant at the time of the offence he appeared to have known his name by the time he mentioned him to the police on March 3, 1987 and also in court when he gave his testimony.
On the evidence I am satisfied that the 2nd appellant was satisfactorily identified as one of those who attempted to rob the complainant on
February 8, 1987 and uphold his conviction and the sentence which in my view is not excessive in all the circumstances of this case bearing in mind also the seriousness of the offence and the punishment imposed by law.
The appeal of Richard Jumaa Musyoka is dismissed.
August 18, 1987
TORGBOR
JUDGE