Law_of_Evidence_in_Kenya

good character then he could be questioned on bad character. 44 Here we go back to section 56
above where evidence of good character is admissible. If an accused person is telling the court
that he is of good character, the prosecution can prove that he is not of good character. The
accused is such cases lay himself bare for the prosecution to show that he is not as good as he
alleges.
For instance in the case of Mohamed Hassan Osman V. Republic 45 the appellant, (Mohamed
Hassan) appealed twice to the court. In the superior court, his appeal was dismissed and was
sentenced to death. The second appeal was allowed but ordered to be reheard by the High
court. The appellant in this case was accused of robbing a bank and was convicted on the
evidence of a prosecution witness no. 8 who in his testimony said that he knew the appellant
for two years before the incident occurred. He also testified saying the appellant was a criminal.
The appellant lawyer appealed to the court arguing that the magistrate ought not to have
admitted the evidence as it was evidence of bad character of the appellant and the appellant
ought to have been warned about asking such question in Evidence Act.
The court however rejected this saying that this was an issue which was brought upon himself
voluntary by the appellant. The Court of Appeal held that the appellant was convicted on sound
evidence which proved the charge against him beyond any reasonable doubt, hence the appeal
was dismissed.
Also evidence of bad character is admissible where the nature or conduct of the defense is such
as to involve imputations on the character of the complainant or of a witness for the
prosecution.In Kenya and East Africa, cross- examination on previous antecedents is not
permissible if it is vital for the defense to raise issue of the character of the complainant. The
court however has discretion to disallow evidence of previous antecedents if they are casting
aspersions on the complainant where the way is opened up, the courts still have a discretion to
disallow evidence where its probative force is outweighed by its prejudicial effect .An accused
44 Section 57(1)(b) Evidence Act Cap 80 Laws of Kenya.
45 (2004)eklr.