Share
Kaihara and Others v Rex (Cr.A. 59/1934 and 60/1934) [1937] EACA 160 (1 January 1937)
- Citation
- [1937] EACA 160
- Status
- Judgment
- Jurisdiction
- Uganda
- Court
- East African Court of Appeal
- Panel
- Abrahams CJ, Ag P (Uganda), Lucie-Smith Ag CJ (Kenya), Webb, J
- Case number
- Cr.A. 59/1934 and 60/1934
- Language
- English
More details
- Court
- East African Court of Appeal
- Panel
- Abrahams CJ, Ag P (Uganda), Lucie-Smith Ag CJ (Kenya), Webb, J
- Case number
- Cr.A. 59/1934 and 60/1934
- Language
- English
On this page
Professional case brief
Research organized from the available case record
01
Holding and result
The appellate court held that the determination of whether there is evidence sufficient to call the accused to their defence is a matter for the trial court, not the appellate court. The trial judge must have considered there was evidence, and the accused, by electing to give evidence, admitted to the killing in circumstances that excluded the defence of grave and sudden provocation. Furthermore, even if defence counsel submits there is no case to answer, participation in subsequent proceedings and eliciting incriminating evidence precludes reliance on that submission on appeal. The court followed the precedents set in Rex v. George and Rex v. Power, finding no basis to interfere with the conviction. The appeals were therefore dismissed.
Court disposition
appeal_dismissed
Orders
- Appeals are dismissed.
02
Material facts
Parties
Karioki wa Gatibo alias Wanjohi Kamau
Appellant Counsel: MalikWanjohi wa Kaihara
Appellant Counsel: MalikRex
Respondent Counsel: Bruce03
Procedural history
Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal From Conviction
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
- 01
Whether the trial court erred in calling upon the accused to enter on their defence after the close of the prosecution case.
- 02
Whether the appellate court can interfere with the trial court's decision to call the accused to their defence based on the evidence presented.
- 03
Whether participation by defence counsel in subsequent proceedings after submitting 'no case to answer' precludes reliance on that submission on appeal.
Party arguments
- Applicant
- Malik, for the appellants, argued that at the close of the prosecution case, there was no evidence to justify calling the accused to their defence, referencing section 289 of the Criminal Procedure Code. He submitted that the accused acted under grave and sudden provocation, and the trial judge ought to have recorded a finding of 'not guilty.'
- Respondent
- Bruce, for the Crown, was not called on to respond. The respondent relied on the trial court's assessment that there was sufficient evidence to require the accused to enter their defence, and that the subsequent proceedings and admissions by the accused justified the conviction.
05
Court’s reasoning
Legal principles
- 01
Section 289(3) Criminal Procedure Code (Kenya)
It is for the trial court to consider and decide, after the prosecution case has closed, whether there is evidence on which the accused should be called upon to enter upon his defence.
- 02
Rex v. Power, 14 Criminal Appeal Reports, p. 17
If defence counsel submits there is no case to answer but participates in subsequent proceedings and elicits incriminating evidence, he cannot rely on the submission on appeal.
- 03
Rex v. George, 1 Criminal Appeal Reports, p. 168
Where no submission is made that there is no case to answer, and the accused elects to give evidence that incriminates him, the appellate court will not interfere with the conviction.
06
Ratio, limits and disposition
Ratio decidendi
The appellate court held that the determination of whether there is evidence sufficient to call the accused to their defence is a matter for the trial court, not the appellate court. The trial judge must have considered there was evidence, and the accused, by electing to give evidence, admitted to the killing in circumstances that excluded the defence of grave and sudden provocation. Furthermore, even if defence counsel submits there is no case to answer, participation in subsequent proceedings and eliciting incriminating evidence precludes reliance on that submission on appeal. The court followed the precedents set in Rex v. George and Rex v. Power, finding no basis to interfere with the conviction. The appeals were therefore dismissed.
Obiter and limits
- The expression 'if the Court considers that there is no evidence that the accused committed the offence' must be construed as it stands, leaving the consideration to the trial court.
- The fact that the accused elected to give evidence and admitted the killing in such circumstances as to exclude the defence of provocation was decisive.
Court disposition
appeal_dismissed
- Appeals are dismissed.
Source and reliance status
East African Court of Appeal
This page organises the available record for research. Confirm quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the official source before relying on the case.
Judgment reading view
Judgment text
The complete available source text.
East African Court of Appeal
Judgment
$160 \cdot$
COURT OF APPEAL FOR EASTERN AFRICA.
Before ABRAHAMS, C. J. (Uganda), Ag. P.; LUCIE-SMITH, Ag. C. J.; (Kenya), and WEBB, J. (both of Kenya).
1. KARIOKI WA GATIBO ALIAS WANJOHI KAMAU.
2. WANJOHI WA KAIHARA
(Appellants) (Original) (Accused No. 1 and 2)
$\overline{2}$
REX (Respondent) (Original Prosecutor). Cr. A. 59/1934 and 60/1934.
- Murder-Section 187, Penal Code of Kenya-After Crown case closed whether accused should have been called upon to enter on their defence—Section 289 (4) Criminal Procedure Code— For trial Court to consider whether there is evidence on which accused should be called upon to enter on their defence —Duty of Court of Appeal in circumstances where trial Judge considered that there was evidence. - Held (29-6-34).—That it is for the Trial Court to consider and decide, after the Crown Case has been closed, whether there is evidence on which the accused should be called upon to enter upon his defence, and not for the Appellate Court to decide whether there actually was evidence. Case of Rex v. George, 1 Criminal Appeal Reports, page 168, followed. Appeals dismissed. - Held Further.-That, though counsel for accused has submitted at the proper stage that there is no case, yet if he takes part in the subsequent proceedings, he cannot on appeal rely on that. Rex v. Power, 14 Criminal Appeal Reports, page 17 followed.
Appeal from Supreme Court of Kenya.
Malik for appellants.
Bruce (Solicitor-General, Kenya) for Crown.
Malik.—Accused, who were brothers, murdered their uncle who had beaten their father. They had grave and sudden provocation. The provocation began when they saw their father.
$Bruce$ not called on.
Malik asks leave to add something. Refers to section 289, Criminal Procedure Code. There was no case to answer when case for prosecution closed.
JUDGMENT.—The appellants were convicted of the murder of their uncle. They elected to give evidence at the trial and admitted the killing in such circumstances as to exclude the submission they now put forward that they had grave and sudden provocation to do the act they did. It has, however, been
brought to our notice, though it was not made a ground of appeal, that at the close of the case for the Crown there was really no justification by the evidence for calling upon the appellants for their defence. We are of opinion that this is so. Mr. Malik, for the appellants, then argued that on the wording of section $289(3)$ of the Kenya Criminal Procedure Code the learned Judge ought to have recorded a finding of "not guilty".
Now Rex v. George 1. Criminal Appeal Reports, p. 168. decided, that where there was no evidence at the close of the prosecution case the Judge was not under a duty to stop the proceedings as no submission to that effect had been made of him. and since the prisoners elected to give evidence and so incriminated himself that he was convicted, the Court of Criminal Appeal did not consider it ought to interfere with the conviction. In Rex v. Power, 14 Cr. App. Reports, p. 17, the same Court held, approving $\text{Rev. } v$ . George, that, even if counsel for the defence submits there is no case to answer, he cannot rely in appeal upon that point if he participates in the subsequent proceedings and elicits evidence which leads to the prisoner's conviction.
We are of opinion that we ought to follow these cases unless -on a proper construction of section 289 (3) of the Criminal Procedure Code we are inhibited from so doing. Our decision must depend upon the meaning we attach to the expression "if the Court considers that there is no evidence that the accused committed the offence." We think that that expression must be construed as it stands. It is for the trial Court to consider whether there is evidence, and not for us to decide whether there actually was evidence. In this case the learned Judge must have considered that there was evidence. As the case turned out the appellants were clearly guilty and we therefore dismiss the appeal.
Case-aware research
Ask AI about this case
The judgment and available research above are public. New questions open in a separate private conversation grounded in this case.