Search court decisions

…Briefly the prosecution case was that on the night of 30th of January, 1993 at about 1 am while the complainant, Kesra Kesina (PW1) was sleeping at his house within Mtomodoni village in Kilifi area, he was awakened from sleep…

…The appellant however has taken the prosecution witnesses to task. He has pointed out carefully some discrepancies in their evidence.…

…Their petitions of appeal, filed on the July 23, 1984, each contained lengthy grounds, but in particular attacked their respective identifications by the prosecution witnesses, upon which of course, their convictions mainly…

…Their petitions of appeal, filed on the July 23, 1984, each contained lengthy grounds, but in particular attacked their respective identifications by the prosecution witnesses, upon which of course, their convictions mainly…

…and liable to pay to the person or persons aggrieved by the removal three times the value of the goods, chattels, stock or crops so removed, in addition to any costs incurred by the person or persons so aggrieved in the prosecution…

…O XV1 deals with the prosecution of suits and adjournments. O XV1 rule 4, is instructive. On 9th May, 1989, the suit came for trial. An application for adjournment was made on behalf of the plaintiff, and, was granted.…

…By the bringing of the application to substitute the plaintiff it was made clear both to the Court and the defendant that the estate of the deceased plaintiff was desirous of continuing the prosecution of the cause of action…

….124 K.E.A. which says: "Not withstanding the provisions of Section 19 of theOaths and Statutory Declarations Act, where the evidenceof a child of tender years is admitted in accordance withthat section on behalf of the prosecution…

…who appeared for both appellants directed our attention to three matters: 1. whether the evidence of identification of the appellants was free from the possibility of error; 2. whether the discrepancies in the evidence of prosecution…

…That would perfectly be a valid defence to a criminal charge, for the prosecution would be duty-bound to prove beyond any reasonable doubt that it was D.W.1 who was in charge of the Ferry at the time of the accident.…

…“for want of prosecution”.…