BENDE DAMAU vs REPUBLIC [2001] KECA 104 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Court of Appeal upheld a robbery conviction because the accused could not explain how he came to possess the stolen goods.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Questions the Court framed
#The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.
- 1.Whether the identification (visual and by voice) of the appellant was proper and sufficient to sustain the conviction
- 2.Whether Abdalla Swaleh (PW4) was an accomplice whose evidence required corroboration before it could be acted upon
- 3.Whether all the ingredients of robbery with violence under Section 296(2) of the Penal Code were proved, including whether medical evidence was necessary to establish violence
Key legal issues
#Sufficiency of identification and recognition evidence on second appeal
The court held that standing alone, the identification evidence would have made the conviction difficult to sustain, but it was corroborated by the recovery of stolen property in the appellant's possession.
The record did not clearly show the description of the appellant given to the police, so if identification were the only evidence the conviction would have been difficult to sustain. However, the recovery of the stolen bicycle and radio cassette from persons to whom the appellant led the police, without any explanation from him, raised a rebuttable presumption of fact under Section 119 of the Evidence Act that he was one of the robbers. Credibility of the identifying witnesses was a question of fact covered by concurrent findings.
Whether Swaleh was an accomplice requiring corroboration
Swaleh was neither an accomplice nor an accessory after the fact but an innocent receiver, so his evidence could be acted upon without corroboration.
Swaleh bought the bicycle from the appellant after being introduced by a neighbour, without any indication or evidence that the bicycle was stolen property. An accessory after the fact, under Section 20 as read with Section 396(1) of the Penal Code, is a principal offender, a classification the facts did not support. The court therefore rejected the appellant's submission that his evidence required independent corroboration.
Proof of the ingredients of robbery with violence
The offence was proved: medical evidence established the injury to the complainant, and evidence accepted by both courts below showed the appellant was not alone; one or more alternative limbs of Section 296(2) suffice.
Counsel for the appellant argued that medical evidence was necessary to establish violence, but the court found clear medical evidence on record proving that Mutisya was injured in the course of the robbery. There was also evidence accepted by both courts below that the appellant was not alone. Because Section 296(2) has several alternative limbs, proof of one or more of them by evidence establishes the charge.
Legal principles established
#- On a second appeal, the Court of Appeal's jurisdiction is confined to questions of law only and it will not disturb concurrent findings of fact by the two courts below.
- Recent possession of stolen property unexplained raises a rebuttable presumption of fact, under Section 119 of the Evidence Act, that the possessor was involved in the theft or robbery; the presumption is displaced only by a reasonable explanation.
- An innocent receiver of stolen property, who bought it without knowledge that it was stolen, is neither an accomplice nor an accessory after the fact, and his evidence does not require corroboration.
- Section 296(2) of the Penal Code contains several alternative limbs, and proof of one or more of them by evidence establishes robbery with violence; medical evidence is not the only means of proving the violence element.
Court orders
#- 1.The appellant's appeal is dismissed in its entirety
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
- On appeal from
- High Court of Kenya at Mombasa
- H.C.CR.A. No. 457 of 1996
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Second appeal to the Court of Appeal under the Criminal Procedure Code, confined to questions of law only
Relief refused
#Quashing of the conviction for robbery with violence and the mandatory death sentence
The court found the conviction supported by the rebuttable presumption of fact from recent possession of stolen property and concurrent findings of fact on identification, and held the appeal lacked merit
Costs
No costs order is recorded in the judgment.
Quotable passages
#Verbatim from the judgment, each located to the page it appears on in the official PDF — so these can be cited and checked directly.
This being a second appeal, our jurisdiction is confined to dealing with questions of law only.
The presumption is one of fact by dint of the provisions of Section 119 of the Evidence Act . Being a presumption of fact it could only be displaced had the appellant offered a reasonable explanation as to how he came to be in possession of the two items.
Section 296 (2) of the Penal Code has several alternative limbs. If one or more of them are established by evidence a charge of robbery with violence within the ambit of the provisions of the sub-section would be established.
For the foregoing reasons, the appellant's appeal lacks merit. Accordingly, it is dismissed in its entirety.
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "BENDE DAMAU vs REPUBLIC [2001] KECA 104 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2001). Criminal Appeal No. 88 of 2001. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/2001/104/eng@2001-07-26
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.