Law_of_Evidence_in_Kenya

8.3 Where corroboration is not required as a matter of law but the jury must be
warned of the danger of acting upon uncorroborated evidence.
In this cases the jury need to warn themselves and after taking such warnings, they can convict.
The problem is we cannot tell whether the jury or judge is warned it is just a thing they note
down.
The evidence of accomplices, an accomplice is „participes criminis‟ is most likely to serve
his/her own interest by giving such information or evidence before court. Wilson Kinyua and
Another v Republic 22
the appellant was charged with murder. He denied the charges while the
accomplice confessed but later repudiated. The appellant was convicted and he appealed. The
appeal court held that the appellant‟s confession was an accomplice evidence that required
corroboration.
Sexual offences cases, the courts have to warn themselves in case they plan to convict on
evidence that is not supported and if they are satisfied they can proceed and convict. It is very
hard to corroborate some of sexual offences because most occur away from public and so it is
quite a challenge with this requirement, therefore judges have held like in Mukungu v
Republic 23 Kwach, Bosire and O'Kubasu “Corroboration is in effect other evidence to give
certainty or lend support to a statement of fact. In sexual cases, corroboration is necessary as a
matter of practice, to support the testimony of the complainant. However, there have been
instances, as in Republic v Cherop Arap Kinei and Another [1936] 3 EACA 124 and Chila v
Republic [1967] EA 722 at 723 (CA), in which it was held that a conviction on uncorroborated
evidence may be had if the court or jury, as the case may be, is satisfied, after duly warning itself
on the dangers of convicting on uncorroborated evidence, of the truth of the complainant's
evidence.” This is to prevent acquittals when corroboration is lacking and the judge is convinced.
8.4 Where corroboration is not required as a matter of law but a matter of
practice.
The corroboration does not become necessary requirement and lack of it is not very detrimental
to the case. It happens in first identification cases, where someone identifies the other at night
22 (1980) KLR
23 (2003) AHRLR 175 (KeCA 2003)