Martin Manani Makangu & Another v Republic
The bottom line
#Kenya's Court of Appeal upheld two robbery convictions, ruling that strong identification evidence and properly conducted parades outweighed complaints about missing exhibits and language records.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Sufficiency and reliability of identification evidence
The identification evidence was tight and reliable; the Turnbull principles were satisfied and the concurrent findings of the lower courts could not be disturbed.
Applying Regina v Turnbull as adopted in Kenyan decisions, the court noted PW3 saw the appellants at night under bright electric light, negotiated the fare with the first appellant, and both were picked out in properly conducted parades, corroborated by PW4's evidence of the appellants presenting the stolen vehicle for repairs the next day.
Non-production of the subject motor vehicle as an exhibit
Non-production did not vitiate the trial where the vehicle was stolen between trials and its log book and photographs were produced.
The court acknowledged that producing a specific exhibit is always desirable, but the owner explained the vehicle's theft between trials; the log book and photographs were produced, and no injustice resulted, so the ground failed.
Right to interpretation where language of trial is not recorded
Failure to record the language used did not breach Article 50(2)(m) or Section 198(1) where a court clerk was present and the accused followed proceedings without complaint.
The court accepted the magistrate unfortunately did not record the language, but held that a court clerk whose duties include interpretation was in attendance, the appellants answered charges, cross-examined witnesses and gave defences without complaint, so no prejudice arose.
Legal principles established
#- On a second appeal, the Court of Appeal concerns itself only with points of law and accepts concurrent findings of fact by the two lower courts unless those findings are unsupported by evidence.
- Identification of an accused person in a criminal prosecution is crucial and constitutes a point of law on second appeal.
- Errors can occur in identification even where a witness asserts conditions were so favourable that a mistake could not occur.
Court orders
#- 1.The two appeals consolidated and determined together
- 2.The appeal dismissed in its entirety
- On appeal from
- High Court of Kenya at Nairobi
- H.C.CR.A. Nos. 457, 458 & 459 of 2006
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Second appeal under Section 361(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Martin Manani Makangu & Another v Republic", Case Analysis (2015). Criminal Appeal No. 342 & 348 of 2009. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/2015/933/eng@2015-02-20
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.