Sammy Olaro Ekirapa v Republic

Section 361(1)(a) of the Criminal Procedure Code confines second appeals to matters of law. The Court restated the settled test, drawing on M'Riungu v Republic, that it will not interfere with concurrent factual findings of the two courts below unless they were made on no evidence at all, on a misapprehension of the evidence, or where no tribunal properly directing itself would make such findings. The issues raised were nonetheless found to raise points of law.

The appellant argued he too should have been medically examined to prove penetration. The Court held the absence of such examination did not undermine the prosecution case, since the medical evidence from the complainant's examination (perforated hymen, live spermatozoa) demonstrated penetration, and evidence from the accused's own examination could only have strengthened the prosecution case further.

The complainant was the only eyewitness, but the offence occurred in broad daylight and the appellant was known to her. The clinical officer's findings, the P3 form, and the mother's observations were corroborative. Further, the proviso to section 124 of the Evidence Act permits conviction on the sole evidence of the victim where the court, for recorded reasons, is satisfied the victim is telling the truth. Both courts below believed the complainant.

The appellant contended he was framed after demanding salary arrears. The Court held the defence was never raised at trial: the appellant's sworn statement only mentioned asking to go home, and he had not suggested to any of the witnesses that he was framed. The allegation was therefore an afterthought with no basis and did not answer the prosecution case.