Abdalla Hassan Hiyesa v Republic

Article 50(2)(m) guarantees an accused the assistance of an interpreter if he does not understand the language of the trial, supported by section 198 of the Criminal Procedure Code. Here the charge was explained in Kiswahili, interpretation was recorded at every hearing, and the appellant's active participation, including extensive cross-examination and applications to recall witnesses, demonstrated he understood Kiswahili. The omission of the interpreter's name from the record therefore caused no failure of justice.

Following Ekai v Republic and Karani v Republic, the Court reaffirmed that a conviction may stand without the weapon being produced so long as the court believes on the evidence that such a weapon existed. Here the medical evidence established death from stab wounds inflicted by a sharp bladed weapon, and consistent eyewitness evidence identified the appellant as the assailant, rendering the absence of the physical exhibits immaterial.

The record showed the appellant applied twice for witness statements, the court ordered their supply on both occasions, and he subsequently cross-examined witnesses using their statements without complaint. Where statements were recorded late, the court adjourned to avail them. Raising the issue only in a second appeal deprived the Court of the High Court's views and, on the facts, disclosed no breach of the constitutional guarantees.

The appellant prosecuted his appeal by written submissions while the respondent replied orally in a restricted manner. Although the court did not call for a further reply, no prejudice was occasioned since the appellant did not identify any aspect of the respondent's submissions he wished to respond to and lost the opportunity to do so. Absent prejudice, the omission could not render the judgment a nullity.

In a second appeal the Court does not interfere with concurrent findings of fact absent an error of law. Consistent eyewitness testimony from three witnesses, which both courts believed, was corroborated by post-mortem evidence of fatal stab wounds. The appellant's unworn defence attributing the events to an attack on his wife was a bare denial that the prosecution evidence completely displaced, justifying the conviction for manslaughter.