Ali v Republic

The trial magistrate found the complainant truthful but held that the law required corroboration, which she found lacking, and acquitted on the main count for that reason alone. The Court of Appeal held this was a misdirection: the judge need only warn himself of the danger of acting on uncorroborated testimony, and may convict if satisfied the evidence is truthful; an unmitigated failure to warn normally vitiates a conviction only where there has been a failure of justice.

The medical report was filled in two months after the examination by a doctor who had not examined the complainant, and the underlying Coast General Hospital report showed no spermatozoa and no injuries; the original report was not produced. The Court held this immaterial: rape is provable by the victim's oral evidence or circumstantial evidence, and endorsed the superior court's reliance on Ongweya v. Republic that surrounding circumstances may corroborate a sexual offence.

The appellant stood convicted on the alternative count of indecent assault. The Court stated that the Chila principles apply to that offence and then tested the conviction against them: there were concurrent findings that the complainant was indecently assaulted; she reported the offence immediately, identified the appellant without hesitation when he arrived at the police booth, her evidence matched the first report to the investigating officer, and torn clothes were produced as exhibits.

Of the seven grounds, three raised relevant issues of law; the rest raised fact or credibility, which the Court declined to consider. Both lower courts had found the complainant's evidence clear, truthful and consistent, and the superior court had correctly held that corroboration could be found in the surrounding circumstances. The Court therefore found no basis for interference and dismissed the appeal.