Njiru & another v Republic

The Court restated its settled approach: it cannot interfere with the decision of the superior court on fact unless the trial and first appellate courts considered matters they ought not to have, failed to consider matters they should have, or were plainly wrong on the evidence as a whole, in which case the omission or commission is treated as a matter of law.

Relying on Okeno and David Njuguna Wairimu, the Court held that re-evaluation is not mere regurgitation, but no particular style is prescribed. The critical question is whether, in totality, the first appellate court reconsidered the evidence and arrived at its own decision, agreeing or disagreeing with the trial court. The High Court's acquittal of four co-accused demonstrated it did not merely regurgitate.

The Court reproduced the High Court's analysis verbatim, showing it considered the electricity light in the sitting room, the six-to-twenty-minute duration of the incident, the complainants' descriptions of each appellant's role, and the identification parades conducted by PW5, concluding the identification was positive and safe.

Applying the Baskerville test as adopted in M'Riungu, the Court held corroboration need only be circumstantial evidence connecting the accused with the crime. The phone traced to PW3, who led police to the 2nd appellant, who in turn claimed he obtained it from the 1st appellant, independently implicated the appellants, and the courts below found it credible.