Law_of_Evidence_in_Kenya

Recommendations

Info

2.2 Legal and contextual meaningThe legal meaning as defined by books and cases is where the whole challenges emerge.According to J.D Heydon 1 , corroboration is evidence tending to confirm some fact of whichother evidence is given.G.D Nokes 2 , corroboration is confirmatory or supporting evidence on a matter on which otherevidence is adduced. Despite the two definitions one can still not make a conclusion on whatcorroboration is or entail. For that reason we look into the cases.The Rex v Baskerville 3 “we hold that evidence in corroboration must be independent testimonywhich affects the accused by connecting him or tending to connect him with the crime. In otherwords, it must be evidence which implicates him with the crime, that is, which confirms in somematerial particular not only the evidence that the crime has been committed but also that theprisoner committed it.” Lord Reading C.J. The above was reiterated in the case of Mukungu vRepublic (2003) A.H.L.R (KeCA 2003).“The word corroboration by itself means no more than evidence tending to confirm other. Inmy opinion, evidence which is (a) Admissible and (b) Relevant to evidence requiringcorroboration and, if believed, confirming it in required particulars, is capable of beingcorroboration of that evidence and, when believed, is in fact such corroboration.” LordHailsham. 4From the cases and books we can confirm that corroboration is, a credible (relevant andadmissible) evidence from an independent source which tends to support or confirm a credible(relevant and admissible) evidence that has been given or is yet to be given before a court andthat it implicates the defendant and not to confirm the commission of a certain act. The last twoform the essential facts or the facta probanda that corroboration must prove (that the accused didit and that the crime was committed)1 1984 Evidence: cases and materials at page 672 Cockles cases and statutes on evidence at page 3823 1916 2KB at page 6584 D.P.P v Kilbourne
The definition above confines corroboration to certain essentials and this brings about thecomplexity in issue of corroboration. The judges have struggled to conform to all the essentialsand for some omission or another the cases have been appealed successfully.3.0 ESSENTIALS OF CORROBORATION EVIDENCE3.1 Corroboration must come from an independent source.The following essential is mainly taken to avoid the cases where the person who gives evidencekeeps on supporting it by herself/himself but from different sources but with her/him as thecreator of all. If such can happen then it will cause an injustice to the defence since the personcan fabricate the information which keep corroborating each other. Rex v Whitehead 5 in thiscase the accused was charged with having unlawful intercourse with a girl aged 16 years, but shementioned the incident first time weeks later when she was pregnant. Lord Hewart C.J rejectingthe argument that such amounted to corroboration stated, “the girl cannot corroborate herself,otherwise it is only necessary for her to repeat her story some twenty five times, to get twentyfive corroborations of it.” The all argument is that, the victim is the one who made orcommunicated such information to be relied upon as corroboration. For the purpose of any ruleof law or practice requiring evidence to be corroborated or regulating the manner in whichuncorroborated evidence is to be treated, a statement rendered admissible by section 35 of thisAct shall not be treated as corroboration of evidence given by the maker of the statement. 6 Thecase where the victim shows some kind of distress has been a matter of concern whether it is tobe accepted as an independent source or not. In R V Chauham 7 , in that case the defendant wascharged with indecent assault on a woman. The complainants extricated herself and ran intolavatory, where she was observed by a fellow employee who had heard her cry. The defendantadmitted that he had been with the complainant but denied any wrong doing and said that thecomplainant had been behaving normally. The trial judge left the complaint distress to the jury aspotentially corroboration of her evidence28. On appeal, the court of Appeal went out of it way topraise the clarity of the judge‟s summing up in this regard and held that he had right to permit the5 1929 1K.B at page 996 Section 32 (2) Evidence Act cap 80 Laws of Kenya7 [1999 18]7 Ecr APP R 232, Critical Analysis of Corroboration under the Nigerian Law of Evidence by KareemRasheedat Temitope
Page 1: CORROBORATION1.0 OVERVIEWCorroborat
Page 5 and 6: accused had been charged for indece
Page 7 and 8: IDENTIFICATION CASES; this is where
Page 9 and 10: tribunals are, with rare exceptions
Page 11 and 12: 8.3 Where corroboration is not requ
Page 13 and 14: given before the court was not enou
Page 15 and 16: Sexual Offences Act No 3 of 2006G.B
Page 17 and 18: Character Evidence in Kenyan LawThe
Page 19 and 20: evidence of a fact or directly rele
Page 21 and 22: person can be questioned on his pre
Page 23 and 24: offence with which the defendant is
Page 25 and 26: OPINION EVIDENCEAn opinion is a vie
Page 27 and 28: some professional or technical matt
Page 29 and 30: Experts are brought by the parties
Page 31 and 32: Opinion evidence is not binding to
Page 33 and 34: Section 50 (1) of the Evidence Act
Page 36: REFERENCESAllen, C. (2008). Practic

Law_of_Evidence_in_Kenya

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?