Daniel Onyango Ochieng & 1 other v Republic
The bottom line
#Kenya's Court of Appeal confirmed that a properly run identification parade can sustain a robbery conviction, and second appeals only review legal errors.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the identification parade was conducted irregularly so as to vitiate the conviction
The contention that the parade was irregularly conducted was rejected; the concurrent findings of the two courts below that the appellant was properly identified both at the scene and at the parade were sound and were affirmed.
The Court, sitting on a second appeal limited to questions of law, found that the identification issue was one of law properly before it. It discerned no evidence of the alleged irregularities: no failure to take descriptions of suspects beforehand, no exposure of the appellant as a 'terrorist', and no pointing out by the investigating officer. The witnesses had electricity lighting and three hours with the attackers, and the appellant's distinctive 'box punk' haircut aided identification.
Legal principles established
#- On a second appeal, the Court of Appeal is confined to matters of law and will not disturb concurrent findings of fact by the two courts below
Court orders
#- 1.The first appellant's appeal abated under Rule 68(2) of the Court of Appeal Rules following his death on 17th July, 2008
- 2.The second appellant's appeal against conviction and sentence was dismissed
- On appeal from
- High Court of Kenya at Kisumu
- H.C.CR.A. No. 34, 35 & 36 of 2006
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Second appeal under section 361 of the Criminal Procedure Code, confining the Court to matters of law
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Daniel Onyango Ochieng & 1 other v Republic", Case Analysis (2009). Criminal Appeal 292 of 2008. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/2009/295/eng@2009-06-19
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.