SheriaNet for Android — search and read Kenyan case law from your phone, offline.
Join the beta →

Shalen Shakimba Ole Betui & another v Republic [2009] KECA 101 (KLR)

[2009] KECA 101 (KLR) Court of Appeal
Read PDF
Court
Court of Appeal
Case number
101
Citation
[2009] KECA 101 (KLR)
AI Summary Beta Machine-generated — may contain errors. Not legal advice.
TypeCriminal AppealPostureAppeal from a judgment of the High Court of Kenya at NairobiCoramD. K. S. AGANYANYA, ALNASHIR VISRAM, J. G. NYAMU
Holding

The appeals are dismissed as there is no merit in them. The appellants were positively identified and recognized by PW1 and PW2, and the evidence was sound.

Facts

On January 25, 2000, Shallen Shakimba Ole Betui and Shadrack Koitimet Ole Betui attempted to rob John Muita, Daniel Thuo, and Mutuku Manyara while armed with dangerous weapons. They were arrested on February 19, 2000.

Issues

  1. whether the trial court erred in law by not analyzing the evidence as required by law
  2. whether the trial court erred in law in shifting the burden of proof on the accused person
  3. whether the trial court erred in upholding the conviction which was based on inadequate evidence
  4. whether the trial court erred in law upholding the conviction despite the contradictions by the witnesses

Reasoning

The court found that the appellants were positively identified and recognized by PW1 and PW2, and the evidence was sound. The court did not find any substance in the appellants' submissions of contradictions in the evidence of the witnesses.

Outcome

Appeals dismissed

Orders

  • The appeals are dismissed

Authorities cited

Cases cited (4)
  • Bukenya v Republic [1972] E.A. 549
  • Turnbull [1976] ALL E.R. 549
  • Joseph Ngumao v R. [1988-92] 2 KAR 212
  • Anjononi and Another v. R. [1980] KLR 54
Experimental AI summary generated by a language model, not a lawyer. It may contain errors or omissions and must not be relied on for legal decisions — the full judgment below is the authoritative source.
Full judgment 0.2 MB · PDF

Loading judgment…

Cite this case


        
        
      

Share this case