Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
Court of AppealDismissedCriminal Appeal No. 126 of 1990· [1990] KECA 45 (KLR)

Tom Jacob Midila Ojwang v Republic [1990] KECA 45 (KLR)

Court of Appeal
3 December 1990
JNJ.O. NyarangiJMJ.R.O. MasimeACA.M. Cockar
162 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~1 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

Kenya's Court of Appeal confirmed it will not disturb two lower courts' agreeing factual findings in a criminal case unless a genuine legal question is raised.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The Court of Appeal at Kisumu (Nyarangi, Masime and Cockar, JJ.A.) dismissed the appellant's criminal appeal against his conviction arising from a fatal road traffic incident. The appellant's vehicle crushed a deceased child, then aged ten months, while the child was within the verandah of the child's mother's house. Both the trial court and the High Court of Kenya at Kisumu (Khamoni, J.), hearing the first appeal, had made concurrent findings of fact that in the circumstances the appellant drove his vehicle in a dangerous manner. The Court of Appeal held those concurrent findings to be correct and determined that no issue of law had been raised worth considering. It accordingly ordered the appeal to be dismissed. The judgment, delivered at Kisumu on 3rd December 1990, is a single judgment of the whole court with no separate or dissenting opinions, no cited authorities, and no costs order. The decision affirms the settled appellate principle that a second appellate court will not interfere with concurrent findings of fact made by the trial court and the first appellate court unless an issue of law is raised worth considering.

Key legal issues

#
01

Interference with concurrent findings of fact on appeal

Holding

The Court of Appeal declined to disturb the concurrent findings of fact of the trial court and the High Court that the appellant drove dangerously; the appeal was dismissed as raising no issue of law.

Reasoning

The appellant's vehicle crushed a ten-month-old child on the verandah of the child's mother's house. Both courts below made concurrent findings that the appellant drove dangerously. The Court of Appeal treated the matter as one of fact with no issue of law raised worth considering, and therefore declined to interfere, dismissing the appeal.

p. 1

Legal principles established

#
  • Where the trial court and the first appellate court have made concurrent findings of fact that an accused drove in a dangerous manner, the Court of Appeal will not interfere absent an issue of law worth considering.

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The appeal is dismissed
On appeal from
High Court of Kenya at Kisumu
H.C. Cr. Appeal No. 155 of 1990
Jurisdiction invoked
Appellate jurisdiction of the Court of Appeal over appeals from the High Court in criminal matters

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Tom Jacob Midila Ojwang v Republic [1990] KECA 45 (KLR)", Case Analysis (1990). Criminal Appeal No. 126 of 1990. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/1990/45/eng@1990-12-03

Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.