Republic v Wanyonyi alias Baba Lao (Criminal Case E332 of 2025) [2026] KEMC 691 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Bungoma court convicted a man of grievous harm, ruling that photos and videos without required certificates cannot be used as evidence in Kenyan criminal trials.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Admissibility of photographs and video evidence without section 78 and 106B certificates
The photos and video were inadmissible for want of certificates and were excluded from consideration
Section 78 of the Evidence Act requires a certificate from a DPP-appointed officer for photographic prints, and section 106B(2) requires a certificate identifying the device, describing data production, confirming proper operation and signed by a responsible official. Neither prosecution nor defence supplied certificates. Guided by Erick Indimuli Siaya and Mtere v Republic, the court held the omission fatal and excluded the evidence.
Effect of treatment notes merely marked for identification
The treatment notes had no evidential weight, but their absence did not defeat the prosecution case
Citing Mwige v Kiguta, documents marked for identification are not exhibits and cannot ground a decision. However, the P3 form filled within 24 hours of the incident, uncontradicted by any contrary medical evidence, remained good proof of injuries, following Kiptanui & another v Republic.
Whether the victim sustained grievous harm
Yes - the stitched cut wound left a permanent scar (disfigurement) and the clinical officer assessed the injuries as maim, both within section 4 of the Penal Code
The P3 form recorded a 3cm cut on the lip stitched at hospital. The court took judicial notice that stitched wounds leave scars causing permanent disfigurement, and the clinical officer assessed the injuries as maim; either suffices under the disjunctive definition of grievous harm.
Whether the Accused caused or participated in causing the harm despite his alibi and the exclusion of the video evidence
Yes - his alibi was dislodged by prompt reporting, eyewitness testimony, and the doctrine of common intention
Eyewitnesses (PW1-PW4) consistently placed the Accused among the attackers; the report at 1355hrs the same day negated fabrication; identity was not mistaken as the parties knew each other and the incident occurred in daylight. Although no witness attributed the specific blow, the Accused, acting with others, did not dissociate himself from the group, engaging section 21 of the Penal Code.
Whether the harm was unlawfully caused
Yes - PW1 posed no danger to any person or property and the attack was actuated by bodaboda leadership wrangles
Lawful infliction of injury arises only in self-defence, defence of others, or protection of property. None applied; PW1 was attacked without legal justification or excuse.
Legal principles established
#- Photographic evidence and video evidence are admissible only if accompanied by a certificate under sections 78 and 106B of the Evidence Act; unauthenticated photos and videos will not be relied upon
- A document marked for identification but not formally produced is not evidence and carries no evidential weight
- Failure to produce a complainant's initial treatment notes is not fatal where a P3 form is produced and no contrary medical evidence is adduced
- The Penal Code's definition of grievous harm is disjunctive; injury meeting any one ingredient suffices
- Common intention may be inferred from presence, actions and omission to dissociate from an assault
Court orders
#- 1.The Accused Person is convicted under section 215 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the offence of grievous harm contrary to section 234 of the Penal Code
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Criminal jurisdiction under the Penal Code (section 234) and the Criminal Procedure Code; first-instance trial of a charge of grievous harm
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Republic v Wanyonyi alias Baba Lao (Criminal Case E332 of 2025) [2026] KEMC 691 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). Criminal Case No E332 of 2025. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kemc/2026/691/eng@2026-03-06
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.