Akim Azed Wakoli & 2 others v Republic [2014] eKLR

Key Facts

Issues

Holdings

• The Court of Appeal upheld the conviction of the three appellants based on fingerprint evidence, finding it cogent and reliable. The court rejected the appellants' argument that the fingerprint evidence was inconclusive or unreliable, noting that the expert testimony established sixteen matching characteristics between each appellant's prints and those found at the crime scene. The court also dismissed the claim that the absence of a report on the fingerprints of the victims (PW1, PW2, and PW3) undermined the conviction, emphasizing that the primary issue was the presence of the appellants' fingerprints at the locus in quo. The appeals were accordingly dismissed.
• The court affirmed the trial court and first appellate court's rejection of eyewitness identification evidence, as it was deemed inconsistent and unreliable. The conviction was based solely on fingerprint evidence, which the court found sufficient to establish the appellants' presence at the crime scene and their guilt. The court cited precedent (PEOPLE VS. JENNINGS, 1911, and Nazir Ahmed v R, 1962) to support the admissibility and reliability of fingerprint evidence in legal proceedings.

Remedies

• The three appellants were convicted of robbery with violence and sentenced to death. The conviction was based on fingerprint evidence, and the appeals were dismissed as the court found the evidence sufficient and reliable.
• The third appellant was acquitted of the charge of handling stolen property, as the prosecution could not establish his guilt for that specific offense.

Legal Principles

• The court relied on section 48(1) of the Evidence Act to establish the admissibility of expert fingerprint evidence, emphasizing that expert opinions on fingerprint identification are legally recognized and not subject to challenge unless contradicted by other expert testimony.
• The judgment applied the three tests for circumstantial evidence as outlined in ABANGA ALIAS ONYANGO vS REPUBLIC: (1) circumstances must be firmly established, (2) they must unerringly point to guilt, and (3) the evidence must form an unbreakable chain of proof. The court found the fingerprint evidence satisfied these tests, leaving no room for alternative explanations.

Precedent Name

• NAZIR AHMED S/O REHAMAT ALI & ANOTHER VS R
• PEOPLE VS. JENNINGS
• ABANGA ALIAS ONYANGO vs REPUBLIC

Cited Statute

• Penal Code
• Evidence Act

Judge Name

• Onyango Otieno
• Azangalala
• M'Inoti

Passage Text

• "It is settled law that when a case rests entirely on circumstantial evidence, such evidence must satisfy three tests: (i) the circumstances from which an inference of guilt is sought to be drawn, must be cogently and firmly established; (ii) those circumstances should be of a definite tendency unerringly pointing towards guilt of the accused; (iii) the circumstances taken cumulatively, should form a chain so complete that there is no escape from the conclusion that within all human probability the crime was committed by the accused and none else."
• "We are disposed to hold from the evidence of the four witnesses who testified, and from the writings we have referred to on this subject, that there is a scientific basis for the system of fingerprint identification, and that the courts cannot refuse to take judicial cognizance of it ..."
• i) The 1st appellant's left thumb prints were identical to the impressions taken from window pane; ii) The 2nd appellant's left forefinger prints were identical to the impressions taken from the door of the store and several other places at the scene; and iii) The 3rd appellant's right forefinger prints were identical to impressions taken from the motor vehicle.