[1996] KECA 41 (KLR)

[1996] KECA 41 (KLR)

The Court of Appeal found that the appellant was positively identified as the person who stole items from the dwelling house, as he was known to the witnesses and was seen by them at the material time. The appellant's unsworn statement was found to be improbable in light of the evidence. The court also found that...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[1996] KECA 41 (KLR)
Parties
Appellant: Omar Lomolion; Respondent: Republic
Court
Court of Appeal
Court Station
Court of Appeal at Nakuru
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Criminal Appeal 38 of 1995
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Judgment
Outcome
appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Stealing From Dwelling House, Resisting Arrest, Impersonation, Identification Evidence, Sentencing, Summary Rejection of Appeal
Source Language
en
Criminal Law Stealing From Dwelling House Resisting Arrest Impersonation Identification Evidence Sentencing Summary Rejection of Appeal

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Omar Lomolion

Appellant

Republic

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Judgment

  1. 1 Whether the appellant was properly identified as the perpetrator of the theft from a dwelling house.
  2. 2 Whether the conviction for resisting arrest was properly proved.
  3. 3 Whether the conviction for impersonation was supported by sufficient evidence.

Ratio Decidendi

The Court of Appeal found that the appellant was positively identified as the person who stole items from the dwelling house, as he was known to the witnesses and was seen by them at the material time. The appellant's unsworn statement was found to be improbable in light of the evidence. The court also found that the charge of resisting arrest was properly proved, as the appellant actively resisted when being apprehended. On the charge of impersonation, the court held that there was ample evidence to support the conviction. The appellant's prior convictions for similar offences justified the sentences imposed. The summary rejection of the appeal by the superior court was therefore proper...

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed in its entirety.