Santa Kenga Kamacha v Republic

The court examined the testimony of all four prosecution witnesses and found the complainant herself narrated the incidents of sexual intercourse; her mother testified to the relationship; and PW4 confirmed penetration and resulting pregnancy. Under section 63 of the Evidence Act, oral evidence must be direct, and this was direct evidence of the acts, not evidence of surrounding circumstances. The distinction between direct and circumstantial evidence was drawn from section 63 of the Evidence Act, Black's Law Dictionary, and R vs Taylor, Weaver and Donovan.

Relying on its prior decision in MGK vs Republic, the Court held that the effect of section 361(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code is that severity of sentence is a matter of fact, not law, and is therefore not liable for reconsideration on second appeal. The appellant's submissions on mandatory minimum sentences, first-offender status and mitigation could not open this door on a second appeal, and the appeal failed on this score as well.

Following Adan Muraguri Mungara vs Republic, the Court reiterated that it must pay homage to concurrent findings of fact made by the two courts below unless such findings are based on no evidence at all or on a perversion of the evidence, or where on the totality of the evidence no reasonable tribunal would arrive at such findings. Finding nothing on record to satisfy those thresholds, the Court declined to interfere, and the remaining grounds raising issues of evidence could not be reopened on a second appeal.