Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
Court of AppealDismissedCriminal Appeal 420 of 2007· [2010] KECA 235 (KLR)

Erick Mokaya Lobes v Republic

Court of Appeal of Kenya
28 May 2010
1,794 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~7 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

Kenya's Court of Appeal dismissed a robbery conviction appeal, confirming that unexplained suspicious conduct can count as evidence against an accused person.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
This is a second appeal to the Court of Appeal at Nakuru by Erick Mokaya Lobes against his conviction and sentence for robbery with violence contrary to section 296(2) of the Penal Code, arising from the robbery of Dismas Kihanja Nyanguka of Kshs.2,000/= on 8th August 2003 after being lured to and locked inside the appellant's house. The appeal followed the dismissal of a first appeal by the High Court at Nakuru (Koome and Kimaru, JJ.) on 29th November 2007. Counsel for the appellant abandoned the original grounds and pursued four supplementary grounds: breach of section 72(3) of the Constitution; insufficiency of identification evidence; failure to warn itself on the dangers of recognition evidence; and failure to re-evaluate the evidence as required by Okeno v. R. The Court, composed of Bosire, Waki and Onyango Otieno, JJA, in a single joint judgment, restated that on a second appeal only issues of law fall for consideration, and that the burden of proof never shifts from the prosecution although an accused may bear an evidential burden under section 111 of the Evidence Act for matters especially within his knowledge. It held that the superior court had properly re-evaluated the evidence and that no constitutional breach was shown given the appellant's unchallenged account that he was presented to court after one night in custody. On identification, the Court found concurrent findings of fact that the appellant lured the complainant to his house to facilitate robbery, and that his unexplained locking of the door raised a rebuttable presumption of fact. The appeal was dismissed in its entirety.

Key legal issues

#
01

Compliance with section 169(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code by the first appellate court's judgment

Holding

The superior court's judgment met the threshold of section 169; it was alive to its duty as a first appellate court, cited Okeno v. R., re-evaluated the evidence and cautioned itself on the dangers of relying on a single identifying witness

Reasoning

The Court found the superior court had set out the correct approach for a first appellate court, re-evaluated the evidence, and cautioned itself regarding single-witness identification testimony. The judgment therefore could not be said to be perfunctory as counsel suggested, and the section 169 complaint failed.

p. 3
02

Alleged breach of section 72(3) of the Constitution (production in court within 14 days)

Holding

No breach established; the appellant's own unchallenged statement showed he was presented to court after one night in police cells

Reasoning

The appellant's recorded statement that he was presented to court after staying in police cells for one night was unchallenged, so the claim that he was held beyond 14 days could not stand.

p. 3
03

Sufficiency of identification/recognition evidence and rebuttable presumption of fact

Holding

The complainant knew the appellant well; the appellant locked him in his house from outside and never explained why, raising a rebuttable presumption of fact that he did so to facilitate the robbery; concurrent findings of fact stood

Reasoning

The robbery occurred in the appellant's own residence; the appellant led the complainant there, locked him in from outside, and offered no explanation. The Court held this raised a rebuttable presumption of fact that he acted to restrain the complainant so he and his accomplices could rob him, and declined to disturb the concurrent findings of fact of the two lower courts.

p. 4
04

Evidential burden on an accused

Holding

While the burden of proof never shifts from the prosecution, an accused has an evidential burden to explain matters especially within his own knowledge, under section 111 of the Evidence Act

Reasoning

The Court articulated the distinction between the legal burden, which remains on the prosecution throughout, and the evidential burden that may rest on an accused for matters peculiarly within his knowledge, applying section 111 of the Evidence Act to the appellant's unexplained act of locking the complainant in.

p. 3
05

Complaints about conflicting medical testimony and non-calling of the investigating officer

Holding

These were minor aspects whose treatment, even adversely to the prosecution, could not affect the conviction

Reasoning

The Court held that the alleged conflict between the doctor's and complainant's testimony on injuries, and the failure to call the deceased investigating officer, were minor; even drawing an adverse inference against the prosecution on them would not affect the safety of the conviction.

p. 4

Legal principles established

#
  • On a second appeal only issues of law fall for consideration
  • The burden of proving a criminal charge lies throughout on the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt and never shifts to the accused, though an accused may bear an evidential burden on matters especially within his own knowledge

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The appeal be and is hereby dismissed
On appeal from
High Court of Kenya at Nakuru
H.C.CR.A. No. 327 of 2004
Jurisdiction invoked
Second appeal to the Court of Appeal on issues of law only under the Criminal Procedure Code following conviction for robbery with violence contrary to section 296(2) of the Penal Code

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Erick Mokaya Lobes v Republic", Case Analysis (2010). Criminal Appeal 420 of 2007. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/2010/235/eng@2010-05-28

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