Patrick Ngunjiri Kariuki v Republic

The court invoked long-standing authority from Saidi v R and Sekitoleko v Uganda establishing that the prosecution's burden of proving guilt beyond reasonable doubt never shifts, whether the defence is an alibi or otherwise. An alibi need only introduce a reasonable doubt. The trial court found the alibi lacking evidential and persuasive value because no witnesses were called, and the High Court simply endorsed that approach, both thereby misdirecting themselves on the law. The court declined to speculate what outcome the correct approach would have produced and allowed the appeal on this ground.

Following Roria v Republic and Maitanyi v R, evidence of a single identifying witness must be tested with the greatest care, especially where the assailants were strangers and no description was given to police. Muiruri v R did not displace the requirement that dock identification evidence must be shown to be true and preceded by a warning. Here PW5's account was internally contradicted by her first report, other victims disagreed on the number and masking of assailants, and no parade tested her identification. No other direct or circumstantial evidence connected the appellant to the offences.

The court confirmed that it did not see or hear the witnesses and would allow for findings on credibility by the trial court, but would intervene where findings rest on no evidence, a misapprehension of the evidence, or wrong principles, citing Chemagong v Republic. Both issues before it qualified as questions of law, permitting review of the concurrent findings of the two courts below.