[2001] KECA 106 (KLR)
The Court of Appeal found no reason to disturb the concurrent findings of the trial and first appellate courts that the appellants were properly identified by the complainant and other prosecution witnesses. The identification was made in broad daylight, on a busy road, and the appellants were well-known to the...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2001] KECA 106 (KLR)
- Parties
- Appellant: Maurice Onyango; Appellant: Peter A. Wanywa; Respondent: Republic
- Court
- Court of Appeal
- Court Station
- Court of Appeal at Kisumu
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- ? 3 of ??
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Appeal / Second Appeal; Judgment of the Court of Appeal
- Outcome
- appeal dismissed; sentence varied to include police supervision order
- Legal Topics
- Identification Evidence, Alibi Defence, Robbery With Violence, Appellate Review
- 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
Maurice Onyango
Appellant
Peter A. Wanywa
Appellant
Republic
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Second Appeal; Judgment of the Court of Appeal
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the appellants were properly identified as the perpetrators of the robbery.
- 2 Whether the defence of alibi raised by the appellants was credible and available to them.
- 3 Whether there were grounds to interfere with the concurrent findings of the lower courts.
Ratio Decidendi
The Court of Appeal found no reason to disturb the concurrent findings of the trial and first appellate courts that the appellants were properly identified by the complainant and other prosecution witnesses. The identification was made in broad daylight, on a busy road, and the appellants were well-known to the witnesses, minimizing the risk of mistaken identity. The defence of alibi was rejected as the evidence placed the appellants at the scene of the crime. The court concluded that the appeal lacked merit and dismissed it, but varied the sentence to include a mandatory police supervision order for five years from the date of release, as required by section 344A of the Criminal...
Court Disposition
appeal dismissed; sentence varied to include police supervision order
Orders
- The appeal is dismissed.
- The sentence is varied to include automatic police supervision order for a period of 5 years from the date of release from prison as mandated by section 344A of the Criminal Procedure Code.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
11 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL AT KISUMU CORAM: TUNOI, LAKHA & OWUOR, JJ.A. CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 3 OF 2000BETWEENMAURICE ONYANGO PETER A. WANYWA .....................................APPELLANTS AND REPUBLIC ..................................................RESPONDENT(Appeal from a judgment of the High Court of Kenya at Kisumu (Wambilyangah J) dated 18th June, 1999 in KSM. H.C.CR.A. NOS. 210 & 211 OF 1998) **************************** JUDGMENT OF THE COURT In this second appeal, we are satisfied that there are no grounds for impeaching the concurrent findings by the two lower courts that the appellants, who were well-known to the complaint and the two main prosecution witnesses, were properly identified. It was established that the attack took place at about 5 p.m. along a busy road on a polling day. The identification in our view, was free from error.
The defence of alibi advanced by the appellants was not available to them for they were at the scene of the robbery.
The account of what happened by the complainant who unhesitatingly named his assailants (the appellants) to the Police agrees in all material respects with the evidence of the other prosecution witnesses.
In the end we have come to the inevitable conclusion that this appeal has no merit and must fail. It is accordingly dismissed. However, the sentence is varied to include automatic police supervision order for a period of 5 years from the date of release from prison as is mandated by section 344 A of the Criminal Procedure Code .
Dated and delivered at Kisumu this 19th day of March, 2001.
P. K. TUNOI --------------- JUDGE OF APPEAL
A. A. LAKHA --------------- JUDGE OF APPEAL
E. OWUOR --------------- JUDGE OF APPEAL
I certify that this is a true copy of the original.
DEPUTY REGISTRAR