Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
Court of AppealDismissedCriminal Appeal No. 80 of 1994

Simon Kamau Kiige v Republic [1995] KECA 102 (KLR)

Court of Appeal
21 February 1995
JGJ.M. GachuhiPhilip Kiptoo TunoiP.K. TunoiASA.B. Shah
440 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~2 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

Kenya's Court of Appeal dismissed a robbery conviction appeal because it raised no point of law, having already rejected identical arguments in a co-accused's earlier appeal.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The appellant, Simon Kamau Kiige, was one of six persons convicted by the Resident Magistrate's Court at Kericho on one count of robbery with violence contrary to section 296(1) of the Penal Code and one count of assault causing actual bodily harm. Several of the group, including the appellant, appealed. A co-accused, Peter Ombuko Muchache, had his appeal dismissed by the High Court and subsequently by the Court of Appeal in Criminal Appeal No. 10 of 1992 on 28th February 1992. The appellant filed his appeal to the High Court late, as Criminal Appeal No. 129 of 1993, and it was dismissed on 14th January 1994 by Rimita J. He then appealed to the Court of Appeal at Nakuru on both conviction and sentence. Before the Court of Appeal he argued that the evidence of PW2, whom he alleged was his wife, should not have been given weight. The court observed that this ground, together with other similar grounds, had been extensively dealt with and rejected in the earlier appeal by Muchache, and the present appeal raised no point of law for its consideration. On that basis the court found no merit in the appeal and dismissed it, delivering its judgment at Nakuru on 21st February 1995. The judgment of the court was signed by Gachuhi, Tunoi and Shah, JJ.A., with no separate opinions and no dissent. No costs order was recorded. The decision binds subordinate courts on the principle that a second appeal raising no point of law must fail.

Questions the Court framed

#

The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.

  1. 1.Whether the evidence of PW2, alleged to be the appellant's wife, should have been given weight
  2. 2.Whether the appeal raised any point of law warranting the court's consideration on second appeal

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether a second appeal that repeats grounds already rejected in a companion appeal can succeed

Holding

The court dismissed the appeal, holding it raised no point of law and was bound to receive the same fate as the earlier dismissed appeal in Criminal Appeal No. 10 of 1992, in which the same ground regarding PW2's evidence had been extensively dealt with and rejected.

Reasoning

The appellant was part of a group of six persons convicted of robbery with violence and assault causing actual bodily harm. A co-accused, Peter Ombuko Muchache, had already appealed to the High Court and then to this Court, and his appeal was dismissed on 28th February 1992. The appellant challenged the evidence of PW2, alleged to be his wife, but this court had dealt with that ground extensively in the companion appeal and rejected it. The present appeal raised no fresh point of law, so it had to fail.

p. 1

Legal principles established

#
  • A second appeal to the Court of Appeal lies only on matters of law; an appeal raising no point of law must be dismissed

Court orders

#
  1. 1.Appeal dismissed

The bench

#

One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.

JG
majority

Wrote the judgment

Philip Kiptoo Tunoi
majority

Wrote the judgment

AS
majority

Wrote the judgment

On appeal from
High Court of Nakuru
H.C.CR.C. No. 129 of 1993
Jurisdiction invoked
Second appellate jurisdiction under the Court of Appeal's statutory appellate powers; the court emphasised it considers only points of law

Relief refused

#

Appeal against both conviction and sentence

No point of law was raised; the grounds were identical to those rejected in Peter Ombuko Muchache v R, Criminal Appeal No. 10 of 1992

p. 2

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 present appeal has not raised any point of law for consideration by this Court and his appeal must receive the same fate as in Criminal Appeal No. 10 of 1992.
p. 2Second appeals confined to points of law
We find that there is no merit in this appeal and we dismiss it. We so order.
p. 2Final orders - dismissal of appeal

Issues in the judgment

#
minor

The date of the High Court judgment appears in two places: the header states it was 'dated 7th February, 1994' while the body of the judgment states the appeal was dismissed on '14th January, 1994'.

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Simon Kamau Kiige v Republic [1995] KECA 102 (KLR)", Case Analysis (1995). Criminal Appeal No. 80 of 1994. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/1995/102/eng@1995-02-21

Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.