Samwel Diang'a Odonde v Republic

The court scrutinised the identification evidence, noting PW1 was the only identifying witness and did not know the appellant before the incident. Although daylight conditions were favourable, no properly arranged identification parade was held, and the purported 'home-grown' parade did not follow laid procedures. The prosecution also adduced no evidence of how the appellant was arrested, the arresting officer relying on the mother (not the identifying witness). The absence of the complainant's testimony compounded the doubt. The cumulative weaknesses ripened into reasonable doubt, rendering the conviction unsafe and requiring quashing on appeal.

Relying on section 361 of the Criminal Procedure Code and prior authority (Chemogong vs. R, Ogeto vs. R, Koingo v R, Reuben Karari S/o Karanja vs. R), the court stated the test is whether there was any evidence on which the trial court could reasonably find as it did. It then held that the treatment of identification evidence raises questions of law, which allowed it to scrutinise the identification parade issue despite the concurrent findings below.

Because the conviction was found unsafe, the sentencing grounds fell away. The court nonetheless noted, as binding authority, the Supreme Court's holding in Republic vs. Joshua Gichuki Mwangi (Petition E018 of 2023) that mandatory minimum sentences in the Sexual Offences Act are not unconstitutional and that trial courts have no discretion to impose sentences below the statutory minimum, which would have rendered the appellant's sentencing grievances moot even had the conviction stood.