Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Original judgment

Samuel Wafula Oduor v Republic

REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT BUSIA CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 17 OF 2015 SAMUEL WAFULA ODUOR..............................................APPELLANT VERSUS REPUBLIC.......................................................................RESPONDENT RULING 1. When this appeal came up for hearing on 20 th March, 2017, the Appellant Samuel Wafula Oduor asked for a “copy of the record of the first report.” 2. The Appellant did not elaborate. Mr. Owiti for the State opposed the application. He submitted that the Appellant needs to give the reasons for making the request and must also show that he had made the application before the trial Court and the same had been rejected. 3. I have looked at the Appellant’s amended grounds of appeal filed on 3 rd November, 2016 and find that in the first ground he alleges that there was no first report to the police implicating him for the offence with which he was charged. 4. The Appellant has simply requested for a copy of the record of the first report made by the complainant as captured in the Occurrence Book. At the moment, he has not said that he wants to do with that evidence. He has not even asked to be allowed to adduce additional evidence. This is a simple request and if the same will aid the Appellant in his appeal then I do not see why his prayer should not be granted. The application is allowed. The Appellant to be supplied with a copy or extract of O.B. No. 56/04/7/14 being the number indicated in the charge sheet dated 7th July, 2014. Dated and signed at Malindi this 27th day of June, 2017. W. KORIR, JUDGE OF THE HIGH COURT Delivered, dated and signed at Busia this 12th day of July, 2017. K. W. KIARIE, JUDGE OF THE HIGH COURT

A note on accuracy. These pages are generated automatically from our AI-written case briefs and have not been checked by a lawyer. Case titles and citations come from Kenya Law; the counts, topics, propositions and “treatment” labels are derived from the briefs and can be incomplete or wrong. Use them as a research aid and always read the original judgment before relying on anything here. This is not legal advice.