[2017] KEHC 5030 (KLR)
The court found that the conviction of the appellant was based solely on the uncorroborated evidence of a single prosecution witness, contrary to the requirements of Section 124 of the Evidence Act, which mandates corroboration in non-sexual offences. The prosecution failed to call the other officer present or...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2017] KEHC 5030 (KLR)
- Parties
- Appellant: Tom Obura Odhiambo; Respondent: Republic
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Migori
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Criminal Appeal 41 of 2016
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Appeal / Judgment
- Outcome
- appeal_allowed
- Judges
- AC Mrima
- Legal Topics
- Traffic Offences, Evidence Corroboration, Criminal Appeals
- 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
Tom Obura Odhiambo
Appellant
Republic
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the conviction of the appellant could be sustained on the uncorroborated evidence of a single prosecution witness.
- 2 Whether the requirements of Section 124 of the Evidence Act regarding corroboration were met in this case.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the conviction of the appellant was based solely on the uncorroborated evidence of a single prosecution witness, contrary to the requirements of Section 124 of the Evidence Act, which mandates corroboration in non-sexual offences. The prosecution failed to call the other officer present or provide any material evidence to support the charges. As a result, the evidence was insufficient to sustain a conviction, and the appeal was allowed. The convictions on all three counts were quashed, the sentences set aside, and any fines paid were ordered to be reimbursed.
Court Disposition
appeal_allowed
Orders
- Conviction on all three counts quashed.
- Sentences set aside.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
23 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA
AT MIGORI
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 41 OF 2016
TOM OBURA ODHIAMBO..................APPELLANT
VERSUS
REPUBLIC.......................................RESPONDENT
(Being an appeal arising from the conviction and sentence by Hon. C. M.
Kamau,RESIDENT Magistrate in Rongo Senior Principal Magistrate’s
Traffic Case No. 587 of 2014 delivered on08/09/2016)
JUDGMENT
1. This appeal was rightly so conceded to by the State on the ground that the evidence of the sole prosecution witness was not corroborated in any material way.
2. The appellant herein, TOM OBURA ODHIAMBO,who was a conductor in a passenger vehicle registration number KBC 017C which plied within Kisumu-Migori road, was charged with three counts under the Traffic Act, Chapter 403 of the Laws of Kenya. The offences were acting as a conductor without official uniform, acting as a conductor without a licence and acting as a conductor without a badge. He denied the charges and one Traffic Police Officer who had arrested the appellant on the road testified as the only witness. The witness however confirmed that he was in the company of his fellow officer on the said day and time. Apart from that evidence no any other form of evidence was produced in corroboration. The appellant was however found guilty and convicted. He was sentenced to a fine of Kshs. 10,000/= on each count and in default he was to serve one moth. The sentences were to run consecutively.
3. Being dissatisfied with that decision, the appellant lodged the current appeal.
4. The role of this Court as the first appellate Court is well settled. It was held in the case of Okemo vs. R (1977) EALR 32 and further in the Court of Appeal case of Mark Oiruri Mose vs. R (2013)eKLR that this Court is duty bound to revisit the evidence tendered before the trial court afresh, evaluate it, analyse it and come to its own independent conclusion on the matter but always bearing in mind that the trial court had the advantage of observing the demeanor of the witnesses and hearing them give evidence and give allowance for that.
5. In discharging the said duty, I have revisited the evidence on record and found that the same was indeed insufficient to sustain a conviction. According to Section 124 of the Evidence Act, Chapter 80 of the Laws of Kenya, the evidence of a single witness must be corroborated in any material sense. That was not the case herein. The said Section 124states as follows: -
“124. Notwithstanding the provisions of section 19 of the Oaths and Statutory Declarations Act, where the evidence of alleged victim admitted in accordance with that section on behalf of the prosecution in proceedings against any person for an offence, the accused shall not be liable to be convicted on such evidence unless it is corroborated by other material evidence in support thereof implicating him.”
6. The only exception to the need for corroboration is in sexual offences. In this case the prosecution was to either call the other traffic officer who was with the witness or to adduce any material evidence in further support of the charges. That to a very large extent explains why police officers are always more than one when on official duties. That however did not so happen.
7. Having found so, the appeal is hence allowed, conviction on all the three counts quashed and the sentences set-aside. As the appellant is set at liberty in law unless otherwise lawfully held, the fines which he paid, if at all any, shall be accordingly reimbursed in full.
8. Orders accordingly.
DELIVERED, DATED and SIGNED at MIGORI this 25th day of April 2017.
A. C. MRIMA
JUDGE