Law_of_Evidence_in_Kenya

the jury. If witnesses are allowed to readily express an opinion concerning an ultimate
issue, there is a risk that the jury will be unduly influenced. 62
Opinions are irrelevant because they lack adequate probative force or value.
The reception of opinion evidence may not assist and may even mislead the court
EXCEPTIONS TO THE GENERAL RULE
The law however recognises that so far as matters calling for special knowledge or skills are
concerned, judges are not necessarily equipped to draw true inferences from facts stated by
witnesses. In Buckley V Rice- Thomas 63 , Saunders J stated “if matters arise in our law which
concern other sciences or faculties we commonly apply for the aid of that science or faculty
which it concerns. This is a commendable thing in our law. For thereby it appears that we do not
dismiss all other sciences but our own, but we approve of them and encourage as things worthy
of commendation.”
The courts may allow a witness to give opinion evidence;
When the court has to form an opinion upon a point of foreign law, or of science or
art, or as to identity or genuineness of handwriting or finger or other impressions,
opinions upon that point are admissible if made by persons specially skilled in such
foreign law, science or art, or in questions as to identity or genuineness of
handwriting or finger or other impressions. 64
Where it is impossible to separate facts from inferences. For instance in identification
parades.
Where it is likely to be correct that convenience dictates that it be admitted.
EXPERT EVIDENCE
An expert is a person having skill or experience or peculiar knowledge on a certain subject or in
certain professions. Experts are persons examined as witnesses in a case who testify in regard to
62 R V Ratti (1991), the court must always be free to reject even unanimous expert evidence for example if it rejects
the facts upon which they are based.
63 (1554)
64 Evidence act section 48(1)