[1996] KECA 149 (KLR)
The Court of Appeal held that there was no basis to interfere with the concurrent findings of fact by the trial magistrate and the High Court, as those findings were fully supported by the evidence. The appellant was properly identified by the complainant, who knew him and had walked with him before the attack. The...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [1996] KECA 149 (KLR)
- Parties
- Appellant: Walter Magana Okore; Respondent: Republic
- Court
- Court of Appeal
- Court Station
- Court of Appeal at Kisumu
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Criminal Appeal 45 of 1996
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Appeal / Second Appeal
- Outcome
- Appeal dismissed save for restoration of statutory police supervision period.
- Judges
- GS Pall
- Legal Topics
- Identification Evidence, Appeals on Facts, Police Supervision, Sentencing Jurisdiction
- 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
Walter Magana Okore
Appellant
Republic
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Second Appeal
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the appellate court should interfere with concurrent findings of fact by the trial and first appellate courts.
- 2 Whether the High Court had jurisdiction to reduce the statutory period of police supervision from five years to two years.
Ratio Decidendi
The Court of Appeal held that there was no basis to interfere with the concurrent findings of fact by the trial magistrate and the High Court, as those findings were fully supported by the evidence. The appellant was properly identified by the complainant, who knew him and had walked with him before the attack. The court further held that the High Court erred in reducing the period of police supervision from five years to two years, as the law mandatorily prescribes a five-year period. The appellate court therefore dismissed the appeal against conviction and restored the original five-year period of police supervision imposed by the magistrate, setting aside the High Court's order to the...
Court Disposition
Appeal dismissed save for restoration of statutory police supervision period.
Orders
- The appeal against conviction is dismissed.
- The order of the High Court reducing the period of police supervision to two years is set aside.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
25 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL
AT KISUMU
(CORAM: OMOLO, TUNOI & PALL, JJ.A.)
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 45 OF 1996
BETWEEN
WALTER MAGANA OKORE .................................... APPELLANT
AND
REPUBLIC ............................................................. RESPONDENT
(Appeal from a Judgment of the High Court of Kenya at Kisumu (Justice Kuloba) dated 31st March, 1995 in H.C.CR.A. NO. 41 OF 1994) ***************
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
We think no matter of law is raised before us in this appeal. The trial magistrate found as a fact that the appellant and the respondent knew each other. The learned judge confirmed that finding. No point of law arises from that finding. The magistrate considered fully the circumstances under which the complainant said he saw and recognised the appellant. He found as a fact that at 8. 00 p.m. the complainant who knew the appellant and who walked with him for some distance before the attack was able to recognise the appellant and the Judge confirmed that finding.
Mr. Aroka for the appellant appears to want us to revisit the findings of fact made by the magistrate and confirmed by the first appellate court. There is no basis upon which we can do that. The findings of fact appear to be fully supportable on the evidence adduced in the trial court. This court can only interfere with findings of fact if such findings are supported by no evidence at all or if on the evidence on record the findings are wholly unreasonable. That is clearly not the position here. We find no merit in the appeal against conviction and we dismiss it. On sentence, we notice the learned judge reduced the period of police supervision to one of two years. the judge had no jurisdiction to do so as the law mandatorily sets down the period of police supervision at five years. We set aside the learned Judge's order as regards that period and restore the period of five years which had been correctly imposed by the magistrate. Only to that limited extent is the order of the High Court altered.
Dated and delivered at Kisumu this 18th day of November, 1996.
R.S.C. OMOLO
...............
JUDGE OF APPEAL
P.K. TUNOI
...............
JUDGE OF APPEAL
G.S. PALL
...............
JUDGE OF APPEAL
I certify that this is a true copy of the original.
DEPUTY REGISTRAR