Kijiba v Republic [1981] KECA 16 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Court of Appeal upheld a murder conviction, ruling that child witnesses can be reliable and that prosecutions must give detailed notice of extra evidence.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Questions the Court framed
#The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.
- 1.Whether oral evidence of the cause of death given by Dr Muturo after refreshing his memory from an inadmissible copy of his report and photographs of the body was inadmissible
- 2.Whether the prosecution's notices of additional evidence complied with section 301 of the Criminal Procedure Code and whether the evidence of the three additional witnesses should stand
- 3.Whether the identification/recognition evidence of the child witnesses was reliable and whether corroboration was required
- 4.Whether the learned judge erred in rejecting the appellant's alibi evidence
Key legal issues
#Admissibility of oral evidence following reference to an inadmissible document
The oral evidence of the doctor was admissible; only the copy of the report was inadmissible
The doctor gave evidence from memory and looked at photographs which were admissible. The copy report was inadmissible, but oral testimony derived from memory does not taint by reference to an inadmissible document. The first three grounds of appeal therefore failed.
Compliance with section 301 of the Criminal Procedure Code on notices of additional evidence
All three notices were defective and the evidence of the three additional witnesses was disregarded
Section 301(2) requires the notice to state the witness's name, address and the substance of his evidence. The notices were sketchy and would not enable the defence to prepare rebuttal evidence. Following Haining v Republic, the notice should approximate a deposition. The judge erred in holding there had been compliance.
Sufficiency of identification/recognition evidence of child witnesses
Recognition by three children who knew the appellant was reliable; two gave sworn evidence not requiring corroboration and the third was corroborated
The appellant himself confirmed at the identification parades that the children knew him. Children can make good witnesses. The unsworn evidence of the third child was corroborated by the other two and by the appellant's own remarks at the parades.
The alibi and the duty to investigate it
Once an alibi is raised early, the police must investigate it; here the alibi was disproved and the discrepancies among the army officers justified rejection
The appellant raised the alibi on September 13, making it the police duty to investigate. The trial judge found discrepancies among the three army officers, disbelieved their demeanour and held the alibi untrue; the Court of Appeal saw no basis to interfere.
Legal principles established
#- Oral evidence does not become inadmissible merely because the witness refreshed memory from an inadmissible document
- A notice of additional evidence under section 301 must disclose the substance of the witness's evidence with sufficient particularity to enable the defence to prepare
- Inadequate notices under section 301 will render the additional evidence inadmissible and it may be disregarded on appeal
Court orders
#- 1.The appeal is dismissed
- 2.The conviction for murder and the sentence imposed by the High Court are upheld
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
- On appeal from
- High Court at Nairobi
- Jurisdiction invoked
- First appellate/criminal appeal to the Court of Appeal under the Criminal Procedure Code (appeal against conviction for murder)
Relief refused
#The appellant's appeal against conviction for murder
The court found the evidence sufficient to sustain the conviction notwithstanding the exclusion of the additional-evidence witnesses
Costs
No costs order made (criminal appeal)
Quotable passages
#Verbatim from the judgment, each located to the page it appears on in the official PDF — so these can be cited and checked directly.
Unless the oral evidence itself is inadmissible it does not become inadmissible because the witness refreshes his memory from an inadmissible document.
A notice of additional evidence should be served as soon as possible after it is decided to call additional evidence. The notice should set out a proof of the additional evidence as nearly as possible akin to a deposition at a preliminary inquiry.
We are of the opinion that the learned judge erred in holding that the prosecution had complied with section 301 in regard to the additional evidence of Joseph Muthuku, Mohammed Adam and Hussein Faiza. We will disregard their evidence for the purpose of this appeal.
The totality of the circumstantial evidence could only lead to the conclusion, as it did, that these proved exculpatory facts were incompatible with the appellant's innocence and incapable of explanation upon any other hypothesis than that of his guilt.
We in turn are also so satisfied. The appeal is ordered dismissed.
Issues in the judgment
#The judgment states the deceased 'was killed by the deceased' in an apparent clerical slip
Date line contains a typographical error 'nad' for 'and'
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Kijiba v Republic [1981] KECA 16 (KLR)", Case Analysis (1981). Criminal Appeal No. 80 of 1980. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/1981/16/eng@1981-11-20
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.