Tom Jacob Midila Ojwang v Republic [1990] KECA 45 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Court of Appeal confirmed it will not disturb two lower courts' agreeing factual findings in a criminal case unless a genuine legal question is raised.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Questions the Court framed
#The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.
- 1.Whether the concurrent findings of fact of the trial court and the High Court that the appellant drove his vehicle in a dangerous manner were erroneous
- 2.Whether any issue of law arose warranting the intervention of the Court of Appeal
Key legal issues
#Interference with concurrent findings of fact on appeal
The Court of Appeal declined to disturb the concurrent findings of fact of the trial court and the High Court that the appellant drove dangerously; the appeal was dismissed as raising no issue of law.
The appellant's vehicle crushed a ten-month-old child on the verandah of the child's mother's house. Both courts below made concurrent findings that the appellant drove dangerously. The Court of Appeal treated the matter as one of fact with no issue of law raised worth considering, and therefore declined to interfere, dismissing the appeal.
Legal principles established
#- Where the trial court and the first appellate court have made concurrent findings of fact that an accused drove in a dangerous manner, the Court of Appeal will not interfere absent an issue of law worth considering.
Court orders
#- 1.The appeal is dismissed
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
- On appeal from
- High Court of Kenya at Kisumu
- H.C. Cr. Appeal No. 155 of 1990
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Appellate jurisdiction of the Court of Appeal over appeals from the High Court in criminal matters
Relief refused
#The appellant's appeal against conviction (for dangerous driving causing death)
The trial court and the High Court made correct concurrent findings of fact that the appellant drove in a dangerous manner, and no issue of law was raised worth considering
Costs
No costs order recorded in the judgment.
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.
The trial court and the High Court made the correct concurrent findings of fact that in the circumstances the appellant drove his vehicle in a dangerous manner.
There is no issue of law raised worth considering.
The appeal is ordered to be dismissed.
Issues in the judgment
#The judgment contains no costs order notwithstanding the dismissal of the appeal.
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Tom Jacob Midila Ojwang v Republic [1990] KECA 45 (KLR)", Case Analysis (1990). Criminal Appeal No. 126 of 1990. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/1990/45/eng@1990-12-03
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.