Law_of_Evidence_in_Kenya

In Gatheru s/o Njagwara v R 73 the accused was charged with unlawful possession of a firearm.
A police officer gave evidence where he simply described himself as an inspector of police
attached to the Criminal Investigation Department of Nanyuki. He did not tell the court how long
he had perfected his duties, whether he had seen or examined any hand-made weapon other than
those seized in the course of the operation leading to the arrest of the accused. The issue on
appeal was whether the evidence of such a person was admissible as expert evidence. The court
observed „we think that such specific skill is not confined to knowledge acquired academically
but would also include skills acquired by practical practise...but even so, his competency as an
expert shall in all cases be shown before his testimony is properly admissible‟.
In the case of Stephen v R 74 the court in this case rejected evidence that was given by a
policeman that he had found the accused in possession of a drug called bhang. Had he just stated
that he had found the accused with a chalk like substance, of a certain colour and a certain smell,
this would have been admissible. Only an expert could separate the compound of that substance
to say it is bhang.
In the case of Charles Ng’ang’a v R 75 , the accused was charged with causing death by
dangerous driving. A police testified on the point of impact to which the defence objected
because the police was not an expert. The appeal court held that unless it was shown that the
policeman had many years of experience in inspecting motor vehicle accidents, he should not
give expert evidence on such a matter.
With regards to handwriting experts in Wainaina v R, it was held that:
i
ii
Whilst a handwriting expert may in a proper case say he does not believe that a particular
writing is a by a particular person, the most he should ever say on the positive side is that
two writings were similar so as to be indistinguishable.
He might comment on unusual features which make the similarity more remarkable.
iii There is no rule requiring the corroboration of the evidence of handwriting expert.
How do the courts treat expert evidence?
73 (1954)21 EACA384,385
74 (1973)EA 22
75 Kenya appeal report criminal case no. 66 of 1980