THELAW OFEVI

DENCE

i
THELAW OFEVI
DENCE

PETER MUHI
NDIKARI
RA

i
i
i
i
 TABLEOFSTATUTES
EvidenceAct( Cap80)
Civil
Pr ocedureAct(Cap21)
Penal Code( Cap63)
Const i
tuti
onofKeny a
Thei mmi grati
onAct(Cap172)
Prevent i
onofCor r
uptionAct
Wildli
feconser vat
ion
ManagementAct( Cap376)
StockPr oduceAct( Cap55)
PublicHeal thAct(Cap242)

i
i
i
I
NTRODUCTI
ON
Thi
smanual isdesi
gnedt ohel
py outhroughtheexaminati
onintheLawof
Evi
dence.Itisnoti
ntendedasasubst i
tuteforanytext
booksbutaimstogiv
e
youguidanceonhowt ostudy.Abov ealli
tspri
maryobject
ivei
stogiveyouthe
cor
rectori
entat
iont
owar dsthesubject
.

IhavetakentheKenyaEvi
denceActsecti
onbysect
ionfol
lowi
ngingener
althe
orderinwhicht
heyappearandendeavour
ingt
oprovideacommentaryi
nli
ghtof
decidedcases;
noti
ngimportantdi
ver
gencewi
ththeLawofEngland.

Muchatt
enti
onhasbeenpai dtothereasonsfortheserul
es.Goodexamplesare
t
heappli
cati
onofthewell
-knownr ul
eagainsthearsay
,simi
larf
act
sevidenceand
t
hepri
ncipl
esofBurdenofproof.

Attheendofy ourstudy
, y
oushoul dhaveacquiredaconfi
dentknowledgeand
underst
andingofthemai nrul
esofev i
dence,theabi
li
tytoappl
ythisknowledge
tothesolut
ionsofproblems,present
ingreasonedandcoherentargumenton
contr
oversi
alpoint
s.

CONTENTS
CHAPTER1 1
1. I NTRODUCTI ON 1
TERMI NOLOGI ESINTHELAW OFEVI DENCE 2
I
TEMSOFJUDI CIALEVI
DENCE/ PROOF 6
FACTSREQUI RINGNOPROOFOREVI DENCE 8
CHAPTER2 10
2. RELEVANCEANDADMI SSIBI
LITY 10
CHAPTER3 26
3. ADMI SSI
ONSANDCONFESSI ONS 26
ORALADMI SSIONSASTOCONTENTSOFDOCUMENTS 29
CONFESSI ONS 30
ADMI SSI
BILITYOFCONFESSI ON 31
PROCEDUREOFTAKI NGACONFESSI ON 32
THELANGUAGEASPECTOFCONFESSI ON 33
RETRACTEDANDREPUDI ATEDCONFESSI ONS 33
DIFFERENCEBETWEENCONFESSI ONANDADMI SSI
ON. 34
CHAPTER4 36
4. EVI DENCEGENERALLYHELDTOBEI NADMISSIBLE 36

i
v
 HEARSAYEVI DENCE 36
OPINIONEVI DENCE 42
EVIDENCEOFCHARACTER 44
CHAPTER5 49
5. DOCUMENTARYEVI DENCE 49
DOCUMENTS 49
EXTRINSICEVI DENCEAFFECTI NGCONTENTSOFADOCUMENT. 50
EXTRINSICEVI DENCEINAI DOFI NTERPRETATI
ON. 52
CHAPTER6 53
6. ESTOPPEL( SS.120–123) 53
DEFINITI
ON 53
ELEMENTARYRULESI NTHEOPERATI ONOFESTOPPEL 55
TYPESOFESTOPPEL 57
DIFFERENCESBETWEENESTOPPELANDOTHERDOCTRI NES. 61
CHAPTER7 64
7. COMPETENCY, COMPELLABILITYANDPRI VI
LEGESOFWITNESSES 64
COMPETENCY 64
COMPELLABI LI
TYANDPRI VILEGE 64
CHAPTER8 69
8. EXAMI NATIONOFWI TNESSES 69
THEORDEROFPRODUCTI ONOFWI TNESSES 69
IMPEACHI NGTHECREDI TOFAWI TNESS 71
HOSTILEWI TNESS 72
CHAPTER9 76
9. BURDENSOFPROOF 76
MEANI NGOFBURDENOFPROOF 76
LEGALBURDENOFPROOFI NRESPECTOFCRI MINALCASES 77
LEGALBURDENOFPROOFI NCI VILCASES 80
EVIDENTIALBURDENOFPROOF 81
STANDARDOFPROOF 82
CHAPTER10 84
10. FACTSNOTREQUI RI
NGPROOF 84
JUDICIALNOTI CE 84
SELF-
EXAMI NATIONQUESTI ONS 87

v
6
 CHAPTER1

1.I
NTRODUCTI
ON

The basi cl aw on t he subj ectofev idence in Keny ai s contained int he

compr ehensiv e Kenya Ev i
dence ActChapt er80 Laws ofKeny a.The wor d
EVIDENCEi sder ivedf rom theLat i
nwor dEv i
denti
awhi chmeanst hest ateof
beingev i
dent ,i
.e.plain,apparent ,orcl
ear .TheLawofEv idencei slexfori
.Itisa
l
awofmer epr ocedureanddoesnotaf fectsubstanti
v erights;lexforimeanst he
l
aw oft hecount ryinwhi cht hepr oceedingst akeplace,andev i
dencei soneof
thosemat ter swhi char egov ernedbyt hel aw oft hecount r
ye. g.Whet hera
witnessiscompet entornot ,whet hercertainmat t
ersr equirepr oofinwr i
tingor
not,thati
st obedet er
mi nedbyt helawoft hecountrywher ethequest ionarises.

Evi
dencemeanst oshowclearly
,t omakepl ain,cert
ainort opr ove.Proofisthe
endandev i
dencei st
hemeanst opr oof.Thewor dEvidencei susedint hesense
ofrefer
ringtot hemeansorinstr
umentbywhi chcer t
ainbeliefsarecreatedinthe
mindsofpr esidi
ngoffi
cer
s.ThusEv i
dencemeansandi ncludesallstatements
whichthecour tpermitorr
equiretobemadebef oreitbywi tnessesinrelat
ionto
mattersoffactunderenquiry(or
alev i
dence)andal ldocument sproducedforthe
i
nspectionoft hecourt(
document aryevi
dence) .

Theev idenceofaf acti st hatwhicht endst opr oveit,somet hi

ngthatmust
sati
sfyt heinqui
rerofthef actsexistence.Thel awofEv idencetoal ar
geext ent
consistsofexclusionaryrules,rul
esdecl ari
ngt hatcert
ainmat terswhichmight
bewel lacceptedasev idenceofaf actbyot herresponsibl
einquirer
swi l
lnotbe
accepted byt hecour ts,rulesdecl ari
ng in otherwor dswhati snotj udi
cial
evi
dence.Judi ci
alev i
dencei susedt opr oveeitherfactsinissue,orfactsfr
om
whichf act
si ni
ssuemaypr operlybeinferr
ed.

I
ll
ust
rat
ion

At el
lsBt hatCbeatB’ swife.Cisprosecutedonachar geofgrievousl
yharmi
ng
B’s wi fe.Aisnotcall
edasawi t
ness,butBdeposest owhatAt oldhi
m.Herei
n
B’sst at
ementthatAt oldhimthatCbeathi s( B’
s)wifeisnoevidenceinl
awbut
Hear say.Whenor alevidenceref
erstoaf act,whichcanbeseen,itmustbethe
evidenceofawi t
nesswhosay shesawi t.I
tisAwhocansayt hatCbeatB’swif
e
andhesawi t.

AccordingtoStephentheter
m‘evidence’meanst hewordsutt
eredandthings
exhibi
tedbywit
nessesbeforeacourtoflaw,Bl
ackstonesaysevi
dencesi
gnifi
es
thatwhichdemonstrat
es,
makesclearorascert
ainsthet
rut
hofthefact
sinissue.

1
Section3cap80def inesev i
dencetodenotet hemeansbywhi chanal leged
mat t
eroff actt het ruthofwhi chi ssubmittedtoinvesti
gati
onisprov edor
dispr
ovedandwi thoutpr ej
udicetothefor
egoinggeneral
it
y,i
ncludesst
atement s
byaccusedper sons,admi ssi
onsandobser vati
onsbyt hecourtinit
sj udicial
capacit
y.Basicallytherefor
et helawofevidenceconcernsitsel
fwitht
wobr oad
i
ssues:

1.I
tseekst
oaddressthequesti
onofwhatf
act
sneedt
obepr
ovedorwhat
f
actsmaybepr
ov edi
nevidence.

2.I
tseekstoaddr
essi
tsel
ftothequest
ionofwhati
sthemeansormet
hod,
t
hroughwhi
chsuchf
actsshouldbeprov
edincour
t

I
nt hatsecondrespect,t
heLawofEv i
denceaddr
essesit
sel
ftothevar
iousrules
governi
ng theadductionand admissi
bil
it
yofev i
denceincourt
,byv ir
tueof
Secti
on3( 2)cap80, onceevi
denceisadducedi
ncourti
twil
lhaveonl
yeitherof
thetwoeffect
s:

1.I
twi
l
lei
therpr
ovet
hedi
sput
edf
act
sor

2.I
twi
l
ldi
spr
ovet
hatf
act

Foracour tt
or eachaconcl usionthatanyf actunderinvest
igationhasbeen
proved,t
heevidenceinwhicht hecourtplacesit
sr el
i
ancemustl eadthecourt
ei
thertobeli
evet hatt
hef actexistsoritmustl eadthecourtt oconsidert
he
exist
enceoft
hatfactprobablei
nt heci
rcumstancesofthatpart
icul
arcase.

Beforet hecour
treachest
heconcl
usionofthatpr
obabi
l
ity,i
tmustaskit
sel
fwhat
apr udentmani nnormalcir
cumst
anceswoul dhavepresumed;andifthecour
t
fi
ndst hattheprudentman would havef ound t
heexistenceofthef acti
n
questionthenitwouldbedeemedproved.

Ont heotherhandaf actwouldbedeemednotpr ovedifeit

heracour tdoesnot
bel
ieveinitsexist
enceoritreachesaconclusi
ont hatareasonablemani nt he
ci
rcumstanceswoul dnothavepr esumedtheexist
enceoft hatfact
.Ifaf actis
nei
therprovednordi sprov
edt hent heLaw ofEvi
dencer equir
esitshoul dbe
deemednotpr oved.

TERMI
NOLOGI
ESI
NTHELAW OFEVI
DENCE

FACT

Meanssomethi
ng,whichhasoccurr
ed.UnderSection3cap80afactwil
lonlybe
deemedtobeafactwi t
hint
helegalcont
extifi
tiscapabl
eofbei
ngperceiv
edby
humansenses,butitalsoincl
udessomet hi
ngt houghnotper
ceiv
ablebyt he

2
humansensesi
scapabl
eoffor
mingaconsciousfi
ndinginthemi ndofaper
son.
Per
cept
ionmaybeexter
nal
i.
e.bythef
ivesensesorinter
nal
i.e.byfeel
i
ng.

FACTINI SSUE
I
sanyf actwhichifpr
ovedtoexist
,ei
theraloneorinconnecti
onwithotherf
acts
thent
heexi st
enceornonexist
enceorthenat ur
eorextentofanyr
ightorli
abi
li
ty
asser
tedordeniedinanypr
oceedingnecessaril
yfol
l
ows.

Factsinissuemaybecategor
izedi
ntotwotypest
hoseinissueasamatterof
substant
ivelaw,
andt
hosewhichareini
ssueasamatteroftheLawofEv
idence
i
tsel
f

Ther
ear
etwosor
tsoff
act
sini
ssue:

1.Mai
nfact
s

2.Col
l
ater
alorSubor
dinat
efact
s

Mai nfactsaret hosef act

st hatapartytoaproceedi
ngmustpr oveinorderto
prove his case.Thi s aref acts whi
ch t
he pl
aint
if
fin a civi
lacti
on,ort he
prosecutorincri
mi nalproceedingsmustprov
einordertosucceed,
toget
herwith
anyf urt
herf acts which the defendantoraccused mustpr ovein or
dert o
establ
ishadef ence.

I
ll
ust
rat
ion

Aplaint
if
fcl aimingdamagesf orpersonalinjuri
es,whichheal l
eges,werecaused
bythenegl igentdr i
ving ofamot orv ehicl
ebyt hedef endant.Thequestion
whetherthedef endantowedadut yofcar et otheplaint
if
fist heconcernofthe
l
awoft ort.Thepl ai
nti
ffscontenti
onst hatthedut ywasbrokenar etobegathered
fr
om thepar ticularsofnegli
gencesetouti nhisstatementofclaim.

I
fnegli
genceisnotdeniedinthedefenseorther
eisnopleaofcontr
ibut
ory
negl
i
gence,theonl
yissuebetweenthepart
ieswil
lmostpr
obabl
yconcernthe
amountofdamagestowhicht
heplai
nti
ffi
senti
tl
ed.

Coll
ater
alorsubordinat
ef act
srefertot
hosefactswhichthoughnotdirectl
yin
i
ssuewillaf
fectthemainfacts,t
heymaybef actswhiche.g.mightaf
fectthe
l
egalaccept
abili
tyofanyev i
dence,t
heymaybef act
swhi chaff
ectthe
competenceorcredibi
li
tyofawi t
nessandthoseaff
ectingtheadmissi
bili
tyor
cogencyofcert
ainit
emsofev i
dence.

3
Exampl
e:

1.I
fyouwishtotenderacar boncopyofadocumentasev
idence,
youmust
pr
ovet
hattheor i
ginali
slost,cannotbef
ound,
ori
sdestr
oyed.Themai
n
i
ssuei
swhet heri
tisrel
iable.

2.I
fyouwishtotenderi
nev
idenceofady i
ngdecl
arat
ion,y
oumustpr
ove
t
hatt
hepersonwhomadethedecl
arat
ioni
sdead.

NOTE: Mainfactsinissuei napar ti

cul
arcasecanonlybeascer tainedby
r
efer
encetothesubstanti
vel aw andt hepl
eadi
ngs.Incivi
lcases,unlessy ou
makeaparti
cul
arpleading,thecour twil
lNOTaddressit
sel
ft oit
.Par tiesare
r
equi
redei
thert
oagreeonf actsi
ni ssueortopr
ovi
dethei
rversi
ons.Thi shelps
t
onarroworcl
ari
fyareasofdispute.

Lor
dGoddar
dst
atedi
nR.vSi
ms1946KB531at539:

“Inacri
minalcasewhenevertherei
sapleaofnotguilt
y,ev
eryt
hingincl
udingthe
i
denti
tyoftheall
egedoff
ender,thenat
ureoft
heallegedact,
andt heexi
stenceof
anynecessar
yknowledgeorintenti
safacti
nissue.”

ADMI
SSI
BILI
TY

Refer
st othe accept
abil
i
tyoff actsin ev
idence,i
ffact
s ar
e accept
abl
e or
recei
vabl
ebythecourti
nev i
dence,thent
heyaresaidtobeadmi
ssi
ble.

Admi
ssi
bil
i
tymayt
aket
wof
orms

a)Descr
ibi
ngt
hemeansormet
hodofpr
ovi
ngaf
act

b)Itmayr efert
otheaccept abi
lit
yorr eceptabi
li
tyoftheact ualfact,ifit
refer
stotheacceptabi
li
tyoft heactualfactthenitdescr
ibesasi tuati
on
wherethecourtispermit
tedt ohavet hefactproved.Thecour twillonl
y
all
owaf acttobeprovedifthatfactiseit
herinissueorisrelevanttothe
facti
nissue.

RELEVANCE

Thi
sdescr ibesar el
ati
onshipbetweenafactwhereinonefactrel
atestoanot her
i
nsuchawayt hattheexist
enceofonesuchf actrender
sprobabletheexist
ence
ornon-existenceoftheot herfact
.Basi
call
yr el
evancemeanst heexistenceof
onefactisper t
inentt
otheexist
enceoftheother.

I
tisal
sogener
all
ynotal
egalconceptbutar
uleofl
ogi
c,butt
hel
awofev
idence

4
hasgivenr
elevancesuchpr
ominenceast
oleadt
otheconcl
usi
ont
hatonl
yfact
s
thatar
erel
evantwill
beadmissi
ble.

Allir
rel
evantfactswi l
lnotbeadmi ssiblet
hishoweverdoesnotmeant hatal
l
rel
evantfactswillbeadmi ssibleinRvTur neritwasheldthatcert
ainev i
dence
rel
ati
ngt oapsy chiat
rist
’sopinionont heaccusedpersonwasr el
ev antbutnot
admissibl
ebecauset hepsy chiatr
istdidnotmeetthestandardofpersonswhose
opini
onwer eadmi ssi
bleasev idenceinl aw.

FACTSRELEVANTTOTHEI
SSUE

Thesearef act
swhi cht houghnotdirect
lyi
nissuehavetheeff
ectofrender
ing
theexi
stenceornonexi stenceofthefact
sini
ssueprobabl
ee.
g.afactr
elat
ingto
thefactthatinamur dert r
ialt
heaccusedpersonmayhav ebeenseenatt he
sceneoftheoffence,ormayhav ebeenseenwit
haweaponwi t
hwhichwasused
tocommi ttheoff
ence.

PROOF

Basicall
yref
erstot
hemeansbywhichtheexistenceornon-
exi
stenceofafacti
s
establi
shedincour
ttot
hecour
tssati
sfact
ion.General
lyi
tmaybesaidtorefert
o
themannert hr
oughwhi
chmater
ialf
actsareestabli
shedi
ncourt
.

PROBATI
VEFORCE

Referstothedegreetowhichanypieceofev i
denceconvincesthecour tastothe
exist
enceornon-exist
enceofthefactinissue.Ital
soattainsthestat
usofpr oof
i
ft hedegreeissohi ghthatar easonablemanwoul dbel i
evethef actstobe
provedorwoul dconsi
derthatint
hecircumst ancesofthecaset heexi st
enceof
thefactsinissuearesopr obabl
ethathewoul dbesubj ect
edt obelieveinthe
factthati
texi
sts.

I
NSUFFI
CIENTEVI
DENCE

Thatevi
dencewhi
chissoweakt
hatareasonabl
emanwouldbeunablet
odeci
de
thei
ssueinfav
ouroft
hepar
tyonwhosebehalft
heev
idencei
sadduced.

CONCLUSI
VEEVI
DENCE

Referst oevidence,whichissost rongastojust

ifythecour
ttaki
ngitt
obe
suffi
cientev
idence.Ifevi
denceissuchthatt
hecourtmustfi
ndthatf
act
sareas
theyaresoughttobepr oved,suchev
idencei
sconcl
usiv
e.

PRI
MAFACI
EEVI
DENCE

5
Maybeconsi
der
edi
ntwosenses

1.Describesasit
uati
oni
nwhi chtheevi
denceissuff
ici
ent
lywai
ti
ngtoenti
tl
e
ar easonabl
emant odecideinfavourofthepersoninwhosebehal
fthe
evidenceisadducedwi
thoutnecessari
l
yimposinganobli
gati
onuponthe
reasonablemantodeci
dei nf
avourofsuchperson

2.Denotesasit
uati
onwherethereasonabl
emancannothel
pbutdeci
dein
favouroft
heper sononwhosebehal ftheev
idencei
sadducedunl
ess
therei
sevi
dencetothecont
rar
y.

PRESUMPTI
ONS

Maybeconsi
der
edatt
hreel
evel
s

1.Referstoaconclusi
onorinferencet
hatmaybedr awni .
e.apresumpt i
on
offact.Forexampl
eitmayrefertoasit
uat
ionwherethefactthataperson
i
sf oundinpossessi
onofrecent l
yst
olengoodsmayl eadtoani nf
erence
thatheistheonewhost ol
et hosegoodsorthathei
sknowi nglyhandli
ng
stol
engoods.

2.Referstoani nferenceorconclusi
on,whi
chasamat teroff
actmustbe
drawn unless thereis evi
dence tothe cont
rar
y.Thisisarebutt
abl
e
presumpti
one. g.thatamar r
iedcouplei
saccessi
blet
oeachotherwher
e
aconfli
ctonlegiti
macyar i
ses.

3.Presumptions,whi
ch prescr
ibesconclusionst hatmustbe dr
awn not
withst
andinganyevi
dencet othecont
rary;presumpti
onsofl
aw.E.g.t
hat
theaccusedpersoni
sinnocentunti
lpr
ov enguilt
y.

I
TEMSOFJUDI
CIALEVI
DENCE/
PROOF

Theseref
ertothemeansormethodofpr
ovi
ngf
act
sincour
t.Ther
ear
evar
ious
waysinwhichf
actsmaybepr
oved.

TESTI
MONY

Thisr ef
erstothemeansbywhi chevidenceispr esentedincour tbywayofor al
statementsstatedbywi t
nessesandrecordedincour t.Testi
monyi sgov er
nedby
variousrulesespecial
lyrul
esregardingexami nati
onandcr oss-examinati
onof
witnesses;thi
srulesseektoensurethatthecour tonlyrecor
dsr eli
abl
eev i
dence,
i
ti sf orthisreasonthatther ul
eofev i
denceexcl udescer t
aincat egori
esof
testimonywhichmayl eadthecourti
ntomaki ngincorrectdeci
sions.

6
Thecour
twi
l
lnotr
egar
dthef
oll
owi
ng:
-

a)Cert
ainaspectsofhear
sayandopini
ongivi
ngtest
imony
;thewit
nessmust
rest
ri
cthersel
fonl
ytothosefact
sthatshehasper
sonal
lyper
cei
ved.

b)Testi
monymaybegivenonoathornotonoat
h,i
fgivenonoat
hthent
he
opposit
epar
tyi
sent
it
ledt
ocross-
examinet
hewit
ness.

HEARSAY

Refer
stoaf act(writ
tenorsai
d)whichthewi t
nesshasnotper sonall
ypercei
ved,
butwhichheclaimst ohavebeenpercei
vedbyanot herpersonwhoi snotgiving
evi
dence.Hear sayis notadmissibl
ei n courtas a generalrule.Itwi l
lbe
i
nadmissibl
eifitseekstoshowthatwhatthewitnesspurport
stosayi st
het r
uth.

Therul
esr egar
dinghearsayevi
denceal sorequi
rethateventhewi tnessst at
ing
hi
sev i
denceincourt,mustnotrel
yonl yonmat ter
s,whichhehasst atedoutof
cour
t.I
fhewant sthecourttorel
yont hosemat t
ersthenhehast ost atethem in
cour
t.Inpracti
cehowev eri
fthestatementt hatwasgivenout si
det hecour tis
i
nconsist
entwiththatwhichthewitnessstatesincourtthenthatinconsistency
maybeusedagai nstthewit
ness.

DOCUMENTARYEVI
DENCE

Document sr
efertofacts,whi
charepresent
edinawritt
enform.Documentsmay
beproducedincourtiftheyar
ecapableofbeingsoproduced.I
ftheyar
ecapabl
e
ofnotbeingproducedthenthecourtmayrefert
othem

Ifawi tnessgi v
ingoraltesti
monydesi resalsotogi vetesti
monybywayof
document sthenhehast oensurethatheiscompetenttoproducethatdocument
i
ncour t
.Ifhei snotcompetentthenhehast orel
yonanot hercompet entperson
topr oducei tincourt.Sometimesadocumentmayf allunderthecat egor
yof
evidencet hatmaybet er
medashear saye.
g.whenpr oducedbyaper sonother
thant hemaker .

THI
NGS

I
tgenerall
yrefer
stoitemsorar t
icl
esani mateorinani
mate,whichareproduced
orpresent
edi ncour
tt oproveaf actinissueorar el
evantfacte.
g.exhibit
s,a
motorvehicl
esaidtohav ebeenstolen,agunetc.Upontheproducti
onoft hi
ngs
thecourtwil
lhavether esponsi
bil
it
yofdr awingitsconcl
usi
onont hebasi sof
thi
ngs.

7
REALEVI
DENCE

ThisrelatestoThingsinmanyaspect
st houghmuchwidert
hanThings,
wher eas
Thingsr eferonlytoitemswhichmaybeseen,t ouchedoreasi
lycarr
ied;Real
evidencer efer
st oallothercat
egor
iesofi t
emsort hi
ngswhichmaynotbe
producedi ncourtwit
hease.

Gener all
yRealev idencer efer
st o evidencesuppliedtot hecour tbywayof
mat eri
alse.g.aninvit
ati
ont othecourttov i
sitthel
ocusinquo,awi tnessmaybe
requir
edt odemonst ratetothecourtanyf actsunderinv
estigati
on,thecour
tmay
alsodr awconclusionsfrom thedemeanoroft hewit
ness,howev ert
hecourtshal
l
becar efulwhil
eappl y
ingdemeanor ,realevidencemayalsot akethefor
m oftape
recordings.

CI
RCUMSTANTI
ALEVI
DENCE

Thisreferstoev i
denceofaf act,whichthoughnotactual
lyinissueisrel
evantto
af actinissue.Itari
seswher eacour tmayr ef
ertoaf actfrom anotherfact
.In
thatregardcircumstanti
alevidencemaybesai dtobeev idenceoff act
spr ov
ing
otherfacts.Inordertoqualif
yf orci
rcumstanti
alevi
dence,thecourtmustar ri
ve
atthef i
ndingthatthefactsactuall
ypresentedl
eavethecour twithnooptionbut
tor eachaconcl usi
ont hatsomeot herfactwaspr esentormayhav ebeen
exhaustive.

InthecaseofRvKi
pker
ingAr
apKoske194916EACA135t
hecour
tofappeal
stat
ed

“Forev idencet o beadmi tted asci rcumstanti

alitmustmeett hef ol
lowi
ng
standards..
..i
nordertojustifythei nf
er enceofguilt
,theexculpat
oryfactsmust
bei ncompat i
blewiththei nnocenceoft heaccusedper sonandincapableof
explanati
onuponanyot herr easonablehy pothesi
sthant hatofhi
sguil
t;iti
supon
theprosecut i
ontoprov
ef actst ojusti
fysuchani nferencetotheexcl
usionofany
otherreasonablehypot
hesis”

EXTRI
NSI
CEVI
DENCE

Thi
sref
erst
oor
alev
idence,
whi
chi
sgi
veni
nconnect
iont
oadocument
.

PRI
MARYEVI
DENCE

Thisisevi
dence,whi
chini
tsel
fsuggest
st hati
tist
hebestevi
denceavai
l
able.
Thelawofev i
dencefav
our
sprimar
yev i
denceasiti
sregar
dedinlawtobethe
bestevi
dence.

SECONDARYEVI
DENCE

8
Thi
sisev i
dence,whichinitsel
fsuggest
stheexi
stenceofsomeotherbet
ter
evi
dence.Inpract
ice,secondaryevi
dencewi
llonl
ybeadmi ssi
blei
fprimary
evi
dencetothesameisnotav ai
l
abl
e.

FACTSREQUI
RINGNOPROOFOREVI
DENCE

PRESUMPTI
ONS

I
faf
acti
spr
esumed,
thecour
twi
l
ltakei
tasi
tis.

ADMI
SSI
ONS

I
fanypart
yhasadmit
tedafacttoproceedi
ngst
hent
hecour
twi
l
lrel
yont
hat
admi
ssi
onwit
houtr
equi
ri
nganyfur
therproof
.

FORMALADMI
SSI
ON

I
sonethati
smadeeitheraf
tert
hesui
thascommencedorwhent
hepr
oceedi
ngs
ar
ebei
ngcontempl
ated.

INFORMALADMI SSION
Arethosethataremadewher enopr oceedingsar
econtempl
ated.Ev
idenceAct
recogni
zesthatal
thoughthecourthasarighttopr
oceeduponanadmission,
the
courtmayalsorequi
refortheadmitt
edfacttobeprov
ed.

JUDI
CIALLYNOTI
CEDFACTS

Factsaresaidtobejudi
cial
lynoti
cedifthecourt
sarepreparedtoacceptt hei
r
st
‘ atusquo’wit
houtanyspecif
icpr
oof.Thelawofevi
dencerecognizest
hatthere
arecert
aincat
egori
esoffacts,whi
chthecourtmustt
akejudi
cialnoti
ceof.

REVI
SIONEXERCI
SES

1.Def
ineev
idence.

2.Whati
smeantbyaf
acti
nissue?

3.Whati
sext
ri
nsi
cev
idence?

4.Tom a studentofevi
dence has come t
oy ou wanti
ng to know t
he
di
ff
erencebetweent
est
imonyandparol
eevi
dence.Pl
easeassi
sthim.

9
 CHAPTER2

2.RELEVANCEANDADMI
SSI
BILI
TY

OBJECTIVES
Bytheendofthi
schapt
ert
hest udentshoul
dbeablet
o.
 Thepr i
nci
pal
softherecepti
onofev i
dence

 Det
ermi
newhi
chf
act
sar
erel
evant

 Det
ermi
newhatev
idencei
sadmi
ssi
ble

Rel
ev ancereferstoev i
dencegiveninsuchawayt hatthefi
ndi
ngoftheexist
ence
offactsmakesi thighlyprobablethatanotherfactinissueexi
stsordoesnot
exi
st.Relevancei s
notentir
elyal egalconceptbutthecourtshaveinsist
eduponittotheextentthat
i
tisnow est abli
shedt hatonlyfactswhichar er el
evantandinissuemaybe
admittedincour t
.

Section5oftheEv i
denceActst at
es‘
Noev i
denceshal
lbegiv
eninanysui tor
proceedi
ngexceptevidenceoftheexi
stenceornonexist
enceofaf actini
ssue
andofanyotherfactdeclar
edbyanyprovi
sionofthi
sacttober
elev
ant .

Gener
all
yal
lrel
evantf
act
sar
eadmi
ssi
blebutar
esubj
ectt
oexcept
ions,under

10
thoseexcept i
onsaf actmayber ej
ectednot wi
thst
andi
ngthefactthatitis
rel
ev ante.
g.fact
srel
ati
ngtoHear
sayev i
dence,Opini
onevi
denceandCharact
er
evidenceunlesst
heyaresav
edbyotherexcept
ions.

Indetermini
ngwhetheranyfactisrel
evantt
hecourtwil
lconsi
dert henatureof
thetransact
ionorthenatureofthefactthatisbei
ngsoughtt obepr oved.In
seekingtoassistt
hecourttomaket hatdeter
minat
iontheevidenceActunder
secti
on6- 16hassetoutthecategori
esoffact
s,whichthecourtwi l
lacceptas
beingrel
evantandther
efor
eadmissibl
e.

RESGESTAE

Thismeansfactsformingpar
tofatransaction.I
nlawat ransacti
onisdefi
nedas
acombinati
onoff act
swhichareconnectedt oeachotherinsuchawayt hatthey
mayber ef
erredtobywayofasi nglewor de.g.tor
t,cri
me,wr ong,cont
ractorin
suchawayt hattheymaybesaidtoconst i
tutethefactwhichisunderenquir
yby
thecour
t.

Facts,whichfalli
nthi
sr elat
ionship,willbedeemedt oberel
ev ant
,despi
tethe
factthatthatmaynothav ebeenr elevantift
heyst oodont rown.ResGest
hei ae
i
sst atutor
il
yprovi
dedforundersect i
on6andi tprov
idest
hatfactswhichfor
m
partofResGest aewil
lber el
evantandadmi ssibledespi
tet
hefactthatt
heymay
haveoccur red ataplaceoratat imedi fferentfrom t
hepl aceort i
meof
occurrenceini
ssue.

Undersecti
on6f act
s,whichmaybeadmi
ssi
bleaspar heResGest
toft aemay
becategor
izedi
ntothree

1.Fact
sthatar
econt
empor
aneoust
othef
acti
nissue.

2.Fact
sthatexpl
aint
hef
acti
nissue.

3.Fact
sthathav
ebeenadmi
tt
ed.

Indeter
mi ni
ngwhet heraf actisadmi ssibl
easformingpar tofResGestaethe
courtwil
lconsiderthelapseintimebet weenthefactinissueandtheotherf
act
whichissaidtobepar tofResGest ae,iftheti
melapseissogr eatt
hent
hecourt
mayr ej
ectthatfactasbeinginadmissi
bl e.

InRvBedi ngfieldtheaccusedwaschar gedwi t

ht heof f
enceofmurder,i
twas
all
egedthatatt hemat er
ialti
mehewasi nthesamer oom wit
hthedeceased
personandt hent hedeceasedpersonemer gedf r
om t heroom wi
thhi st
hroat
partl
ycut.Outsidet her
oom, thedeceasedmetal adywhom headdr essedi
nt he
fol
lowingwor ds“ Lookwhathar m hehasdonet ome” .Thequest
ionthecourt
wast odeterminewaswhet herthequoteformedpar tofthesametr
ansacti
onas

11
t
obeadmi
tt
edast
ober
elev
ant
.

Itwasheldthatthatstat
ementwasnotadmi ssible,asitdidnotfor
m partofthe
samet r
ansacti
onbecausei twasst atedafterthef acti
nissuehadoccurred.The
courtt
reat
editasady i
ngdeclarati
onwhi chwashowev eri
nadmissi
bleunderthe
Engli
shlaw.Howev erundersection6f actsformingpar tofthesametransacti
on
wil
lbeadmissibl
eev eniftheyoccurredafterthefactinissue.

Int hecaseofRamadhanI smailvRt herewasapr el

iminaryinquiryintot he
defil
ementofagi rlchi
ld.Thegi rlwasunabl et ogiveev idencebyr easonofher
aget husherpar entsgavetheev idenceonherbehal f.Thepar ent
sst atedthaton
themat er
ialday ,thegirlcamehomecr yi
ng and st ated thatshehad been
assaultedbytheaccused.Herf atherledherbyt hehandt owher etheaccused
wasandsheposi ti
vel
yidentifi
edt heaccused“ thatisthebwana” .Thecour twas
thencal l
edupont odeterminewhet hert
hatst atementf ormedpar toft hesame
transacti
onast hefactofdef il
ement ,hel
d,Intheci r
cumst ancesoft hatcase,that
statementdidnotf orm partofthesamet ransactionast herewasani nter
vention
ofal ongtimelapse.

InRvRat tenTheaccusedwaschar gedwi t

hhav i
ngmur deredhi swi feusi nga
gunI nhi sdefence,t heaccusedst atedthatt heki l
l
ingwasacci dentalbecause
thegunwentof facci dentallyashewascl eaningi t
,tocount ert hatexpl anati
on
andt oshowt hatitwasnotanacci dentalshoot i
ngt hepr osecutionadducedt he
evi
denceofat el
ephoneoper atorwhohadbeent el
ephonedbyt hedeceasedwi fe.
Inthet elephoneconv ersati
ont hedeceasedst ated,“ Getmet hepol i
ce” .The
questionforthepol icet odet erminewaswhet herthatst atementt ot hetelephone
operatorwasadmi ssible;thecour theldt hatthatst atementwasadmi ssibleas
for
mi ngpar toft hesamet ransacti
onandt hatalthoughi twashear say ,itwas
admissibleasi tdi
dnotseekt oassertthet ruthoft hatst at
ement ,itwasonl y
i
ntendedt oshowt hatt hest atementwasmade.Thecour tstatedt hat“therewas
ampleev i
denceoft hecl oseandi ntimateconnect i
onbet weent hest atement
ascri
bed t o t he deceased and t he shoot i
ng t hat occur red i mmedi at
ely
aft
erwar ds”.

Thecour
tthenconcl
udedthatt
her
ewasacloseconnect
ionint
ermsofti
meand
pl
acetol
eadtoaconclusi
onthatt
hest
atementf
ormedpartoft
hetr
ansact
ion.

FACTSCAUSI
NGORCAUSEDBYOTHERFACTS

Thisareprov
idedforundersection7whi chstat
esthatanyfact,whi
chist he
occasi
oncauseoref f
ectoft hefactsini
ssueorwhichconstit
utethest
ateof
thi
ngsunderwhichthefact
sinissuehappenedorwhichpr
ovidedanopport
uni t
y
fortheoccur
renceofthef actsinissuearerel
evant
.Iti
simmat eri
alwhether

12
t
hosef
act
swer
ethei
mmedi
atecauseorr
emot
eef
fectoft
hef
act
sini
ssue.

I
ll
ust
rat
ions

1.Thequest
ioniswhetherAr obbedB.Thefactst hat
,short
lybef
orethe
robber
yBwenttoafairwi
thmoneyi nhi
spossessionandthatheshowed
i
tormenti
onedthef
actthathehadittoot
herpersons,ar
erel
evant
.

2.Thequesti
oniswhet
herAmur
der
edB.Mar
ksontheground,
producedby
astruggl
eatornearthepl
acewher
ethemurderwascommi tted,ar
e
rel
evantf
acts.

3.Thequesti
oniswhetherApoisonedB.Thest at
eofB’shealthbeforethe
symptomsascri
bedtopoison,andhabit
sofB,knowntoAwhi chafforded
anopport
unit
yfort
headmi ni
strat
ionofpoi
sonarer
elev
antfacts.

Pr
inci
pleandScope

Thi ssecti
onadmi tsav erylar
geclassoff actsconnect edwit hfactsi
ni ssueor
relevantfacts,thoughnotf ormingpartofthet ransacti
on.Fact sformingpartof
the same t r
ansact ion are admissi
ble undersect i
on 6.Ev idence r
elati
ng to
collater
alf actsisadmi ssi
blewhen such f act swi l
l
,ifest abli
shed,establi
sh
reasonablepr esumpt i
onast othemat t
erindi sputeandwhensuchev i
denceis
reasonablyconcl usive. The sect i
on provides fort he admi ssi
on ofsev eral
classes off actst hatar e connected witht he transacti
on underi nquiryin
par t
icul
armodes, viz.

a)Asbei
ngt heoccasionorcauseofafact;
b)Asbei
ngitseffect;
c)Asgi
vingopportunit
yfori
tsoccurr
ence;and
d)Asconsti
tut
ingthestateofthi
ngsunderwhichi
thappened.

Int hecaseof RvBr abin&Anot her( 1947)E. A.C.A.80 t heaccusedper sons

wer eempl oyeesoft heCer ealCommodi tyDistri
butionBoar d.Theywer eaccused
ofcor r
upt i
oni nt hattheyhadobt ainedbr i
besf rom oneHasham Kar aasan
i
nducementf orbear i
ngt oshowf avortohi minr el
ationtot heaf f
air
soft heBoar d.
Ev i
dencewasadmi tt
edofapr ev i
ouscor rupttransactionbet weenthedef endant
andHasham Kar awher ebyf i
vemont hspriortot het ransact i
onwhichwast he
facti nissuei nt hi
scase;i twasal l
egedt hatt hedef endant shaddemanded
shs. 500asbr ibest ogethi ssugarsuppl yrestoredwhi cht hedefendant shad
stopped. On appeal ,the def endant s cl
aimed t hatev idence oft he ear l
ier
transactionhadbeenadmi ttedi mproper l
y.Thecour tofappealuphel dthel ower
cour t’
sdeci sion. Itobser ved,i nteral i
a,thati nthei nst antcaset hepr ev i
ous
corruptt ransactionwasr elevantpr imar i
l
ysi nceitexpl ainedt hestateofaf fairs
thatex i
stedbet weenthecompl ainantandt heaccusedper sons.

13
NOTE: Thatt hecourtisnotsay ingt hattheev idenceofpr evi
ouscr i
mesis
admissi
bleineverycase,butonl ywher etherei saconnect ionbetweenthe
prev
iouscri
meandt hecri
mewi thwhi cht heaccusedischargedofandf orwhi
ch
heisbeingtri
ed,andthent hepreviouscr i
meshowst hestat
eoft hi
ngsatthe
ti
meoft hecommissionofthepresentallegedcrime.

I
nt hecaseofRvPr emjiKurj
i whereSs.6&7andt hei ssueofResGestaeis
di
scussedinrelat
iontoachargeofmur der
,thedeceasedhadbeenki ll
edwit
ha
daggerandev i
dencewasadmi t
tedatthetri
alofthef actthatj
ustpri
ort
ot he
deathofthedeceased,t
heaccusedpersonhadassaultedthedeceased’
sbrot
her
wit
hadaggerandhadut t
eredthr
eatsagai
nstthedeceased.

Onappeal
,theaccusedpersonarguedthatthi
swasev idenceoft
hecommissi
on
ofa separ
ate off
ence and theref
oreinadmissi
ble. The courtrej
ect
ed hi
s
ar
gumentandupheldthedecisi
onoft heLowerCourt.

TheCour tsaidi
nteralia;“I
fthi
swoundi nghadtakenpl aceinadi ff
erentpartof
Zanzibarand werenotconnect ed with mur
dert heobj ecti
on would bewel l
founded buther et he two occurr
ences are so closely connect
ed thatt he
woundingpar tthedeceased’ sbrothermustber egardedaspar toft he Res
Gestaeont hetr
ialoftheappell
antforthemurderofthedeceased. ”

FACTSSHOWI
NGMOTI
VE,
PREPARATI
ONANDCONDUCT

Anyev i
denceofaf act,whi
chshowsorconstit
utesmotiv
eorpreparat
ionforany
facti
ni ssueorf oranyotherrel
evantf
act,isrel
evantundersecti
on8.Under
secti
on8( i
i
)af actthatshowsconductisalsorel
evantbutmustbeev i
dence
rel
ati
ngt oproceedingsunderi
nvesti
gat
ion,ormustbeconductt hatrel
atesto
anyotherrel
evantfact.

I
ll
ust
rat
ions

1.Ai str
iedf ort
hemur derofBbypoi son.Thef actthat,
bef oret hedeathof
B,A pr ocuredpoi sonsi milartot hat
,whi chwasadmi nisteredt oB,is
rel
evant.
2.Ai saccusedofcr i
met hef actthat,eitherbefor
eoratt het i
meoforaf t
er
theallegedcr i
me,Apr ov i
dedev idencewhi chwoul dtendt ogi v
et othe
factsoft hecaseanappear ancef av or
ablet ohi
mself,orthatdest royedor
concealedev i
dence, orpreventedt hepr esenceorprocuredt heabsenceof
personswhomi ghthav ebeenwi tnessesorsubpoenaedper sonstogive
fal
seev idenceinrespectitar erel
ev ant.

3.Thequest i
onis,whet
herA wasr obbed.Thef actthatsoonaftert
he
al
leged robber
y,he made a complaintrel
ati
ng tot he of
fence,t
he
ci
rcumstancesunderwhi
ch,andtheter msinwhich,thecomplai
ntwas

14
 made,
arer
elev
ant
.

Thefactthathesaidhehadbeenr obbedwithoutmakinganycompl ai
nti
s
notrel
evant,asconductundert
hissectiont
houghi tmayberelevantasa
dyi
ngdeclarati
onundersecti
on33(a),orascorrobor
ati
veevi
dence.

Undert hissecti
on themot i
ve,whi
ch i
nducesa partyto do an act
,orthe
preparat
ions,whichhemakesi ni
tscommi ssi
on,wil
lbetakenintoaccount
.
Evidenceofmot i
v eorprepar
ati
onsbecomesi mpor
tantwhenacasedepends
uponci r
cumstant
ialevi
denceonl
y.

Motive–i sthatwhi chmov esamant odoapar t

icul
aract.Therecanbeno
acti
onwi thoutamot ive,whi chmustexi stf orev er
yv ol
untar
yact.Preparat
ion
consistsindev isi
ngorar rangingt hemeansormeasur esnecessaryf orthe
commi ssionofacr ime.Pr epar at
ionsont hesi deoft heaccusedtoaccomplish
thecr i
mechar gedort oprev enti
tsdi scov ery,ort oaidhisescape,ortoavert
suspici
onf rom him arerel
ev antont hequest i
onofhi sguil
t.Wherethequestion
i
swhet herA hascommi tt
edanof fence,t hef actofhi shavingprocur
edt he
i
nstrument s,whichareusedi nitscommi ssion,isrelevant
.

FACTSESTABLI
SHI
NGI
DENTI
TYORI
NTRODUCI
NGSOMETHI
NG

Thisisprovidedforundersecti
on9asexplanator
yorint
roduct
oryf
acts.TheAct
provi
dest hatevi
denceisrelev
antandther
eforeadmissi
blei
fiti
sinrespectofa
fact
,whichf al
lswit
hinanyofthefol
lowi
ngcategori
es:

i. Fact
sthatexplainorintroduceaf acti
nissue
i
i. Fact
sthatsuppor torrebutani nferencesuggest
edbyt hefactinissue.
i
i
i. Fact
sthatestabli
sht hei denti
tyofat hi
ngortheidenti
tyofpersonswhose
i
denti
tyar
econsi deredr elevant.
i
v. Fact
sthatprovidethet i
meandpl acewhenar el
evantt
hingoccur red.
v. Fact
sthatshowt herelationsofpar ti
esbywhom anyr elev
antf actprfact
i
nissuewast r
ansact ed.

I
ll
ust
rat
ions

1.Thequest i
oniswhetheragi vendocumenti sthewill
ofA.Thest ateofA’s
propertyandofhi sfami l
yatt hedat eoft heallegedwi l
lmayber el
evant
facts.Thi si
sanexampl eofi nt
roductor yfact
.
2.Wher ethequest i
oniswhet herAwr oteananony moust hreateninglet
terto
B,requiringhimt ocomet oapar t
icularplaceatanappoi ntedt ime,the
factthatAwentt othatplaceatt hattimewoul dbeconductr elevantunder
S.9.Ont heotherhand,thef actthatAhadsomeot herwor katt hatti
me
andpl acewoul dberelevantast endingt orebuttheinferencet hathehad
writ
tent heanonymousl ett
er.

15
STATEMENTSANDACTI
ONSREFERRI
NGTOCOMMONI
NTENTI
ON

Undersecti
on10,wher ether
ei sreasonablegroundtobeli
ev ethatt woormor e
per
sonshav econspiredt ocommi tanof fenceoranact ionablewr ongt hen
anyt
hingthatwassaidordoneorwr it
tenbyanyoft heconspiratorsinref
erence
tot
heircommoni nt
entionisr
elevantagainsteachoftheconspirators.

Suchfact
swill
berel
evantt
oest
abli
shthataconspi
racyact
ual
l
yexi
stedandt
hat
apart
icul
arper
sonwasapartyt
otheconspi
racy.

I
nt hecaseofRvGokal dasKanji(1949)EACA 116f orexampl e,ther
ewer e
al
legat
ionsofaconspir
acybuttherewasnodi r
ectev i
dencet oprovethatthe
al
legedconspi
rat
orsact
uall
yconspir
ed.Thecour tnotedt hatconspir
acymight
notbeest abl
i
shed bywayofdi rectev i
dencebecauseconspi r
atorsdo not
normall
ymeettoget
hert
odesignandcar r
youtthei
rint
ention.

Thecourtstated,“ I
tiscommonpl acet osayt hatanagr eementt oconspiremay
bededucedf rom anyact swhi chraisethepr esumpt i
onofacommonpl an.Ify
ou
fi
ndthattwoper sonspr ocur
edbyt heiracttwoobj ectsof t
enbyt hesamemeans,
oneperformingonepar toft heactandt heot herpar toft hesameactsoast o
completeitwi t
ht hev iew toat t
ainmentoft heobj ectwhi chtheywerepur sui
ng
youwouldbeatl i
bertytodr awt heconcl usi
ont hatt heyhav ebeeninvolvedina
conspi
racytoef fectthatobject .
”

I
nSt anl
eyMusi ngavR ( 1951)18EACA211t hecourthel
dthat,“
apersonwho
j
oinsaconspiracyisresponsi
bleinlawforal
ltheact
sofhisfel
lowconspirat
ors,
done inf ur
therance oft he conspi
racy,done bef
ore,duri
ng oraf terhis
part
ici
pati
on.
”

Seeal
soRvPat
elB.N.(
1957)EA416

FACTSTHATRENDERPROBABLEORI
MPROBABLETHEFACTSI
NISSUE

Undersect
ion11,
afactwi
l
lber
elev
anti
f:

i
. Thoughnotrel
evanti
tisconsi
stentori
nconsi
stentwi
thaf
acti
nissueor
rel
evantf
act
.

i
i
. Af acti
sr el
evanti
feit
hert
akenaloneort
oget
herwi
thot
herf
act
sitmakes
theexistenceort henon-
exi
stenceofafactini
ssuehi
ghl
yprobabl
eor
highlyi
mpr obabl
e.

I
ll
ust
rat
ion

1.Thequest
ioni
s,whet
herAcommi
tt
edacr
imeatNai
robionacer
tai
nday
.

16
 Thef actthat
,onthatday,AwasatMombasai srelevant
.Thef actthat ,
neart heti
mewhent hecri
mewascommi t
tedAwasatadi st
ancef rom
theplacewhereitwascommi t
ted,
whi
chwouldrenderithi
ghl
yimpr obable,
thoughnoti mpossi
ble,t
hathecommi
ttedi
t,i
srelevant.I
tisont histhat
thetheoryofali
bii
sbased.

2.Thequesti
onis,whetherAcommittedacr i
me.Theci rcumstancesare
suchthatthecri
memusthav ebeencommi t
tedeitherbyA,B,C,orD.
Ever
yfact,
whichshowsthatnooneelsecoul
dhav ecommi t
tedthecri
me,
andthati
twasnotcommi t
ted,
byei
therB,CorDi srelev
ant.

Theeffectofthi
ssecti
oni s,t
heref
ore,tocl
earl
yenl
arget
hecl
assesofrelev
ant
fact
s.I fafactwererelev
antundert hi
ssecti
on,i
twouldber
elevantev
eni fi
t
werenotrel
evantunderanyothersecti
onoftheAct
.

Atf i
rstsi
ght,itwoul dappeart hatthissect i
onwoul dmakeev eryfactrel
ev ant
becauseoft hewor dingoftheclause( b).Butcaremustbet akennottogi v
et his
secti
onani mpr operlywidescopebyal i
berali
nter
pretat
ionofthephrase‘highly
probableorimpr obable’
.Otherwise,thissecti
onmi ghtseem t
osupersedeal lthe
otherprovi
sionsoft heActastor elev
ancy .

Thoughthetermsoft hissect
ionarewide,t
hepr ov
isi
onsregar
dingrelevancy
cont
ainedi
not hersect
ionsoftheActcontr
olthem.Fur t
her
,thefactreli
edon
mustbeprovedaccordi
ngtotheprov
isi
onsoftheAct.

FACTSWHI
CHWOULDI
NFLUENCEORAFFECTTHEQUANTUM OFDAMAGES

Factsarerel
evantinanysui
twher
eindamagesar
eclaimed,i
ftheyaff
ectthe
quantum ofdamagesbyassi
sti
ngt
hecourti
nit
sassessmentoftheamountof
damagest obeawarded.

Inaccidentcasesforexample,i
ndet er
mini
ngwhet heraf actisrel
evant
,in
rel
ati
ontoquantum ofdamages,t
hecourtmayacceptfact
s,whichrel
atet
oage,
sex,pr
ofessi
on,et
cofapersoninrel
ati
ontowhichdamagesareclai
med.

FACTSAFFECTI
NGEXI
STENCEOFARI
GHTORCUSTOM

Factsmayber elev
antundersect i
on13iftheyseekt opr
oveanyrelevantcustom,
orclaim basedont hatcustom,oranyf actsr el
ev anttothatcust
om.I thasbeen
shown t hatt he ri
ghtorcust om should be capabl e ofsurvivi
ng repeated
i
nstancesofi tsasserti
onanddeni alwherethet ransacti
onsmaybesupposedt o
have under gone modi fi
cati
on,asser ti
on,cr eation,re-or
ganizati
on or ar e
i
nconsistentwi t
htheirexi
stence.Leavi
ngaf teritsconsiderat
ionaf ai
rmat t
erfor
j
udicialconsiderat
ionast oconsi derwhet hert hecour tshouldorshoul dnot
decreeit
.

17
Acust
om t
ober
ecogni
zedbyacour
tshoul
dbe:

a)Anci ent
b)Cont inuousanduni
for
m
c)Reasonabl e
d)Cer t
ai n
e)Compul sor
yandnotopti
onal
f) Peaceable,and
g)Noti mmor al

I
tmaybegener
alorspeci
al.

FACTSSHOWI
NGSTATEOFMI
NDORFEELI
NG

Anyactseekingt oestabli
shthestateofmindofapar tytot hepr oceedingsi
s
admissi
bleinevidenceundersection14.Suchf act
smayr elatef orexampl et
o
theint
enti
on,knowledge,goodfai
th,goodwil
loril
lwil
lornegligenceoft hepart
y
i
nquest i
on.Underthesamesect i
on,fact
sarealsorelev
antift heyseekt oshow
theexi
stenceornon-exist
enceofanystateofbodyorbodil
yfeel i
ngs.

Foranysuchf
act
stobeadmi
tt
edi
tmustbeshown:

i
. Thatt
hestat
eofmi
ndorbodyorbodi
l
yfeel
i
ngsar
erel
evantt
othef
acti
n
i
ssue,and

i
i
. Thatsuchstat
eofmi ndorbodyi sinrespectofthefactinissuefor
examplein a murdert r
ial
,the accused st
ate ofmind i
sr el
evantin
establ
i
shi
ngmaliceaforet
hought.

InMohammedSaedAkr abivR( 1956)23EACA512Theappel lanthadbeen

convict
ed ont wo countsofuseofcr imi
nalforcewithi ntent
iont o outrage
modest y.Itwasal l
egedt hathewast heheadofaneducat ionalinsti
tuti
onat
whicht wost udent(boys)complainantsat
tended.Ont hemat eri
alday ,itwas
all
egedt hatthet wostudentsvi
sit
edt heappell
ant’
sofficeonof fi
cialbusiness
andt heappellantwit
houttheconsentofthetwo,rubbedt heirhandsagai nsthis
penis.

Theprosecut
ionsoughttoadduceevidencef
rom thr
eeot
herboy sf
rom the
samecl assand schoolt
o who si
mil
aractshad beendi
rect
ed onprev
ious
occasi
ons.

I
nhisdefence,theappell
antdi
dnotdenytheaccusat
ionsbutst
ated,“whatyou
hav
einyourmi ndisonlysuspi
cion,
youhavegott
hewr ongi
mpressi
on,youhave

18
madeapr obl
em outofnonsense.
”Theprosecuti
oni
nresponsear
guedthati
n
makingt
hosest at
ements,theappel
l
antwast ry
ingt
oconstructadef
enceof
ei
thermi
stakeoracci
dent.

Thecour tt
heref
oreconcludedt hatt
heappel lantwasrai
singadefenceand
consequent
lyt
hecour tper
mi t
tedtheprosecut
iontoadducetheev
idence.Such
evi
dencewasheldadmi ssi
bletoshowthattheappell
anthadcommit
tedtheacts
wit
hacr i
minal
intent
.

Seeal
so Rv.Makindi
Al
lanGodffr
eyv
.R.(
1947)KLR44

I
ll
ust
rat
ions

a)Ai saccusedofdef amingBbypubl ishingani mputati

oni ntendedtohar m
thereputati
onofB.Thef actofpr ev i
ouspubl i
cati
onsbyAr especti
ngB,
showingi l
l-
wil
lont hepartofA t owar dsB,i srelevant,aspr ovingA’ s
i
ntentiontoharm B’ sreputati
onbyt hepar t
icul
arpublicati
oni nquestion.
Thef actthatt
herewasnopr evi
ousquar relbetweenAandB,andt hatA
repeatedthemat t
ercompl ainedofashehear ditarerelevant,asshowing
thatAdidnotintendt oharmt hereput ati
onofB.

b)Ai saccusedofr ecei

vi
ngst ol
engoodsknowi ngthem tobest ol
en.I tis
provedt hathewasi npossessi
onofapar ti
cularst
olenarti
cle.Thef act
that,atthesamet i
me,hewasi npossessi
onofmanyot herstolenart
icles
i
sr el
ev ant,
astendi
ngtoshowt hathekneweachandal loft
hear t
icl
esof
whichhewasi npossessiontobestolen.

c)AissuedbyBf orthepriceofworkdonebyB,uponahouseofwhichAis
ownerbytheorderofC,acont r
act
or.A’
sdefencei
sthatB’
scontr
actwas
withC. ThefactthatApai dCf ortheworkinquesti
onisrel
evant
,as
provi
ngthatAdid,ingoodf ai
th,makeovert
oCt hemanagementofthe
workinquest
ion,sothatCwasi naposi
ti
ontocontr
actwit
hBonC’ sown
account
,andnotanagentf orA.

d)A suesB f ornegl i

genceinpr ov
idi
nghi m wit
hacar ri
agef orhi
renot
r
easonablyf i
tforusewher ebyAwasi nj
ured.Thefactt
hatB’satt
enti
on
wasdr awnonot heroccasiontothedefectofthatpart
icul
arcar
ri
ageis
r
elevant. Thef actthatB washabi tual
lynegli
gentaboutthecarri
age,
whichhelettohire,i
sirrel
evant
.

e)Thequestionis,whetherAhasbeengui l
tyofcr
uelt
yt owardsB,hi
swife.
Expressi
onsoft hei
rfeeli
ngtowardseachot
hershor
tlybeforeoraf
tert
he
al
legedcruel
tyar er
elevantf
acts.

f
) Thequest
ioni
s,whatwast
hest
ateofA’
sheal
thatt
het
imeanassur
ance

19
 onhisli
fewaseff
ected.St
atementmadebyAastot
hest
ateofhi
sheal
th
atorneart
heti
mei nquest
ionar
erel
evantf
act
s.

I
ntent
ion,knowl edge,andsimil
arotherstat
esofmind,ar
emat t
ersofcogent
i
nquir
yi ncri
mi nalcases,inciv
ilcasestheyar
ever
ymat er
iale.
g.i
ncasesof
mali
ciousprosecution,
fraud,
negli
gence,
etc.

Pr
inci
ple:

Wher et hequestionisast oknowledge,intent

,mot i
ve,oranybodilyormental
state,ev i
denceofot heractsdone,showingt heexi stenceofsuchknowledge,
i
nt ent,mot i
veorbodilyormentalstate,areadmi ssibl
e,eventhoughitinv
olv
es
thepr oofofot hercrimes. Evi
denceadmi tted forsuch purposesmustbe
conf i
nedwi thi
ntheli
mi t
sforwhi
chitisadmi tt
ed.

Whentheexi
stenceofament alorbodi
l
yfeel
i
ngisinissueorrel
evant
,thenthe
f
actsf
rom whicht heexi
stenceofsuchmentalorbodil
ystat
eorbodilyfeel
i
ng
maybeinf
err
edar erel
evant.

Seet
hei
l
lust
rat
ions.

I
ll
ust
rat
ions(a)deal
swithintent
ion;(
b)wit
hknowledge;(
c)wit
hgoodfai
th;(
d)
wi
thnegli
genceandknowledge;(
e)&(f),
wit
hmentalandbodi
l
yfeel
i
ng.

Toexpl ai
nst ateofmi ndev i
denceisadmi ssi
blethoughitdoesnotot herwise
bearupont heissuetobet ri
ed.Thepr incipl
eonwhi chev
idenceofsi mil
aractsis
admissibl
ei snottoshowt hatbecauset hedefendanthascommi t
tedonecr i
me
ther
eforehewoul dbelikelytocommi tanot her,
butt oest
abli
sht heanimusoft he
actand r ebut,byanticipation,theobv i
ousdef encesofi gnorance,acci
dent,
mistakeorot heri
nnocentst ateofmind.

FACTSSHOWI
NGSYSTEM

Thisref
erstot heevi
denceoffactswhi char esimil
artothef actsunderi nqui
r y
butwhichhav ebeendoneatdi ffer
entt i
mesandpl aces.Theycoul dbeei t
her
subsequentorpr i
ortothefactunderinqui ry.Secti
on15 pr ov i
desthatwher e
therei
saquest ionastowhetherthepar ti
cularactwasi ntentionaloracci
dent al
orwhetheritwasdonewi ththepar t
icularknowl edgeori ntenti
ont hefactthat
suchactf ormedpartofaser i
esofsi mi laroccurrencesi neachofwhi cht he
persondoingtheactwasconcernedisrelev ant.

I
ll
ust
rat
ions

1.A isaccusedofburni
ngdownhi shouseinor dertoobt ai
nmoneyf or
whichiti
sassur
ed.Thef act
sthatAl
ivedinseveralhousessuccessi
vely
eachofwhichheinsur
ed,
inwhichafi
reoccurr
ed,andaf t
ereachofwhich

20
 fi
resAr eceivedpay mentf rom adi ff
erentinsuranceof fi
ce,arerelevant,as
tendingtoshowt hatthefireswer enotacci dental
.
2.Ai semploy edtor eceivemoneyf rom debtorsofB.I tisA’sdut ytomake
entri
esinabookshowi ngt heamount sr eceivedbyhi m.Hemakesan
entryshowingt hatonapar ticul
aroccasionher ecei
vedl essthanher eall
y
didrecei
ve.
Thequest ionis,whet hert hisfal
seent rywasacci dent alorintenti
onal.
Thef actsthatot herent r
iesmadebyAi nt hesamebookar efalse,and
thatthefal
seent ryisineachcase, infavorofA, arerelevant.

Pr
inci
pleunder
lyi
ngS.15:

Wherei tisuncer tai

nwhet heranactwasdonewi thguil
tyknowledgeorintent
ion
orwhet heritwasi nnocentoracci
dent
al,proofthati
tformedoneofaser iesof
simil
aract sr aisest hepr esumpt
ionthattheacti nquestionandt heot hers,
toget
herf ormi ngaser ies,weredonesy stemati
cal
ly,andwer etheref
or enot
i
nnocentoracci dental
. Thissecti
onisanappl icat
ionofthegeneralr ul
el ai
d
downi nsection14.

I
nanEngl i
shcasePer ki
nsvJef f
eryamanwaschar gedfori
ndecentexposur
et o
awomanwi thint
entt oinsulther
.I twasheldt hatthefactthathehad,on
prev
iousoccasi
ons,thusexposedhimselftoher,wouldberel
evanttoshowt hat
theexposur
ewasintenti
onal,andnotacci
dental
.

InMakinvA. GForNew Sout hWal es(1894)AC57acoupl e,theMaki nswer e

char
gedwi ththeof f
enceofmur derofani nfant.Theevi
denceshowedt hatthe
motherofthatinfanthadpl acedt heinf
antundert hecustodyoft heMaki nsas
i
nfantadoptersforasmal lconsiderati
on.Af t
erthatshenev ersaw t hei nf
ant
agai
n.Themor t
alremainsoft heinfantwerer ecover
edinagar denbelongi ngto
theMakins.Theremai nswer edressedinthesamecl othi
ngast heinfantwason
thedayi twashanded ov ert ot heMaki ns.TheMaki nswer esubsequent l
y
char
gedwi t
hthemur deroftheinfant.

Thepr osecut
ionsoughtt oadduceev idencef r
om el evenotherper sonswhohad
placedt hecustodyoft heirchi
ldrenundert heMaki nsinsimi l
arcircumstances.
Theseel evenpersonsalsonev ersawt heirchi
ldren.Whent hegar denwasdugup,
ther emainsoft heot herchi l
drenwer er ecoveredandt heMaki nshadnev er
reportedanyoft hosedeat hstot hepoliceort othepar ents.Thepr osecuti
on
soughtt oadducet heevidenceoft heotherelevenper sonsinor dertostr
engthen
theircaseagainsttheMaki nsforthekill
i
ngoft hel astoneinfant.

TheMaki nsopposedt hatattemptbyar

guingt hatadmit
ti
ngsuchev idencewoul d
beprejudi
cialbecausetheyhadbeenchargedwi t
hthemurderofonl yoneinfant.
Thecour theldthatthatevidencewasadmi ssibletoshow thattheadopt i
onof
thosechildr
enwasnev erbonaf i
deandthatt hechildr
endidnotdi eofnat ural
causes.TheMaki nswer edescri
bedasbabyf armersorgardeners.Thiscasel ai
d

21
downt
hecor
epr
inci
plesofsi
mil
arf
act
sev
idence.

Accor
dingt
oLor
dHer
schel
l
,ther
ewer
etwopr
inci
ples:

a)Propensit
yandcr iminalcharactermaybepr ej
udicedifi mputedbyt he
court.TheLordst atedthat,“iti sundoubtedl
ynotcompet entforthe
prosecut
iontoadduceev idencetendingt oshow thatt heaccusedhas
beenguilt
yofcriminalact
sot herthanthosecoveredbyt heindict
mentf or
thepurposeofleadingtotheconclusionthatt
heaccusedi sl
ikel
yfrom his
cri
minalconductorcharactertohav ecommi t
tedtheoffencef orwhichhe
i
sbei ngtr
ied.
”

b)Similarfactev i
dencemaybeusedt or ebutt hedef enceofacci dentandt o
showt hatt heoffencewascommi tt
edwi thapar t
icularstat
eofmi nd.That
pri
nciplewaspr opoundedi nthi
squot e,“ont heot herhandt hemer efact
thattheev idenceadducedt endstoshowt hecommi ssionofot hercrimes
doesnotr enderitinadmissi
bleifi
tber elevanttot heissuebef oret hejury
andi tmaybesor el
evantifitbear
supont hequest ionwhet hert heact s
all
egedt oconst i
tutethecrimechargedi nthei ndi
ct mentwer edesi gnedor
accidentalort or ebutadef encet hatwoul dother wisebeopent ot he
accused. ”

I
tist
hatsecondpr
inci
plet
hatf
ormst
hebasi
sofsect
ion15.

InD.P.
Pv .Boardman(1974)3AllER87.Thef
oll
owi
ngpr
inci
plei
nrespectof
simi
l
arfactevi
dencewaslai
ddown:

1)Theadmi ssi
onofsi
mil
arf
actevi
dencei
sanexcepti
onr
athert
hatt
herul
e.
Consequentl
ythecour
twillonl
yadmititi
fther
eisast r
ongdegreeof
probat
ivefor
ce.

2)Theprobati
vev
alueofthesimil
arfactev
idencesoughtt
obeadmi
tt
ed
mustoutwei
ghi
tsprej
udi
cial
eff
ect.

3)Forsimil
arfactevidencet obeadmissi
blethesimi
larfactandt hemai n
factini
ssuemustdi spl
aysuchstr
iki
ngsimil
ari
tyorunderl
yingunityt
hatif
i
ti saccepted,itwoul d benonsensi
califitwereexpl ained asmer e
coinci
dence.Thi
st hi
rdpri
ncipl
edoesnotapplytoaquestionwher eproof
ofknowledgeisrequir
ed.

4)Inadmitt
ingsimil
arfactev
idencet
hecour
tshoul
dappl
yit
scommon
senseandexper
ience.

22
 5)The admissibi
li
ty ofsimil
arfactevidence does notdepend on any
par
ti
culardefence.Onthecont
raryanygeneraldeni
alent
it
lest
hecourtto
admitsi
milarfactevi
dence.

I
nthecaseofHar
ri
sv.D.
P.P.(
1952)AC694

The appell
antwho was a pol i
ce of
fi
cerwas char
ged wi
th ei
ghtcounts of
breaki
ngintocertai
nshopsinamarketandst
eal
i
ngsumsofmoneyf r
om ther
ein.
I
neachoft hecount s,
onlypar
tofthemoneywasstol
enandthesamemeansof
breaki
ngandst eali
ngwasused.

Further,inalltheei ghtoccasi onst hatt herewasbr eakingi nandst ealingt he

accusedwast heof fi
cerondut ypat rol
li
ngt hatmar ket.Onal loccasi
ons,hewas
i
nuni form.Inthef i
rstsevencount s,therewasnodi rectev i
dencet oconnecthi m
withthebr eaki
ngi nandt heft.Ont heeight hoccasionhowev ersomedet ectives
whohadbeent rai
l
inghimf oundt hispoliceof f
iceroutsidethemar ket.Partoft he
moneyt hatwasst olenont heei ghthoccasi onhadbeenmar kedbutt hemar ked
moneywasnev erfoundi nhisper soni nsteaditwasf oundinacoalmi nel ocated
i
nsomepl acewher ehehadbeenseenemer gi
ng.Hi sexplanati
onwast hatatt he
ti
met hatheemer gedf r
om thatdi recti
onhenev erknew thatt heper sonswho
weret rai
li
nghim wer edetecti
v es.

Int hetrialt
hepr osecut
ionsoughttoadduceev idenceoft heprevi
oussev en
break-i
nsandst eali
ng.Thecourthel
dt hatdespit
et hef actt
hattheaccusedhad
notr aised any parti
cul
ardefence the prosecuti
on was ent i
tl
ed to adduce
evidenceoft hesevenprevi
oustheft
s.Thecour tfurthernotedthatthecourthas
discret
iont oexcludesimil
arfactevidenceifitspr ej
udici
alvalueexceedsits
probati
v eval
ue.

WHENMAYSI
MILARFACTEVI
DENCEBEUSED

I
tmaybeusedf
ort
hreemai
npur
poses:

1.Topr
ovet
hest
ateofmi
nd.

I
nt hi
sr espect
,wherei ti
sshownt hatt
hereisasi mil
arseri
esofconduct
i
nvolv
ingthesameper sonchar
ged,t
hecourtmaymakeani nf
erencet
hati
nall
t
heconduct soract
sthesamestat
eofmindwaspresent
.

Simi
larl
y,i
fitisshownthatthestateofmi
ndrequi
redwasacqui
reddur
ingthe
commi ssi
on ofapr evi
ousact,then t
hecour
tmaymakean i nfer
encethat
knowledgewaspresenti
nthelat
teract
.

23
Thegeneralpresumpti
oni sthatther
eisaconti
nuit
yofact
sandi ft
hesamestate
ofmindexistedinthef
irst,secondandthi
rdact
s,theni
tmaybesaf etoconcl
ude
thatt
hesamest at
eofmi ndwaspr esenti
nthefourt
handsubsequentact
s.

NoorMohammedvR.(
1949)ALLER365

Theappel l
antwaschar gedwi t
hthemur derofawomanhewasl iv
ingwi th.Itwas
all
egedt hathepoi sonedthewomanusi ngpot assi
um cy ani
de.Inat tempt sto
count eradefenceofacci dentorsuicidet hepr osecuti
onsoughtt oadduce
evidenceofthefactthatbeforethi
sparticul
ardeat htheappell
ant’
swi fehaddi ed
outofpot assi
um cy anidepoisoni
ng.Theappel lanthadnotbeenchar gedwi th
thedeat hofhiswifebutt hecourtrel
iedont heev i
denceofhi swi f
e’sdeat hto
sustainaconvicti
onf orthi
ssubsequentdeat h.Heappeal edtothePr ivyCounci l
arguingthatthedeat hofhi swi f
eshoul dnothav ebeenadmi ttedint hi
st r
ial
againsthim.ThePr i
vyCouncilagreedwithhim andhel dthattheevidencedi dnot
meett hepri
ncipl
esetouti ntheMaki nscasebecausei tmer elyr eli
ed on
propensity
.

RvBond(
1906)2KB389

Theaccusedpersonwhowasamedi caldoctorwaschargedwi t
htheoff
enceof
usingcertai
nequipmentonawomanwi thi nt
enttoprocureanaborti
on.The
prosecut
ionadducedevi
denceofthefactthataboutni
nemont hsbef
orethi
sact
hehadusedsi milari
nst
rumentsonanotherwomanwi thadecl ar
edint
enti
onto
procureanaborti
on.Dur
ingtheprev
iousact shewasreportedtohavestat
edto
thewomant hathehadputdozensofgir
lsright.

Thei ssuebef orethecourtwaswhet hert

heev i
denceofthatprev
iousaborti
on
andt hi
sst atementwer eadmi ssi
bl e.Thecourtheldthatsuchev i
dencewas
admissibl
et oshowt hatthemotiveofusingthoseequipmentswastoprocurean
aborti
on.Thecour tfur
theradmittedev i
dencethatthemot i
veoft heaccused
personwast or el
ievehi
m ofthebur denofpater
nit
y.

RvAr
mst
rong(
1922)2KB555

Theaccusedwaschar gedwi t
ht heoffenceofattemptedmur der.I
twasal l
eged
thathehadat tempt edt omur dertheper sonbyadmi ni
ster
ingarseni
cpoi son.
Subsequentlythebodyofhi swi fewasr ecovered.Postmortem examinat ion
carri
edont hewi f
e’sbodyr evealedthatshehaddi edofarseni
cpoisoning.The
accused admitted thatar senicpoi son wasf ound in hispossessi
on buthe
explai
nedthathekepti tforpur posesofkill
ingweedsi nhisgardenandt hathi s
wife had consumed t he poi son intenti
onall
yt o commi tsuici
de.The cour t
admi t
tedthatal t
houghhi swi fehaddi edear l
i
er,thi
ssubsequentat tempt ed
poisoningcoul
dactassi milarfactev i
dencetoshow t hathehadmur der edhi s
wife.Itwashel dt hatt hedeat hofhi swi feeightmont hsearli
erwasnei ther

24
acci
dent
alnorsui
ci
de.

SeeAchi
engvR(
1972)EA37

2.Toshowt
hei
dent
it
yoft
heper
pet
rat
or.

Inthi
srespect,ifsever
aloraseri
esofactsaredonesof r
equentl
yandt heyare
sosimil
artoeachot herandthemodei nwhichtheyar
edonei ssi
mi l
ar,
theni
fit
i
sknownt hatt heprevi
ousactswerecommi tt
edbyaparti
cularpersonthenthe
courti
senti
tledt omakeaninfer
encethatt
hesubsequentact
swer edonebyt he
sameperson.

Forthi
sinfer
encetobemadet hecourtmustbeconv i
ncedt hatt
hemannerin
whichtheseactshavebeencommitt
edissodi sti
nctthatnoneothert
hanthe
per
sonwhocommi t
tedt
heprevi
ousact
sisresponsi
ble.

InRvSt raff
en( 1952)2QB911t heaccusedper sonwaschar gedandconv i
cted
witht heoffenceofmur deri
ngay ounggi r
l.Heappeal edarguingthatthetrial
courthadwr ongl yrel
iedonev i
denceoft wopr eviousmur dersal
legedtohav e
beencommi ttedbyhi m.Thepr osecutionsoughttoshowt hathemusthav ebeen
responsibleforthemur derofthegi r
lbecauseont hedayshewasmur deredthe
accusedper sonhadescapedf rom custody .Evi
denceshowedt hatthesame
modeofki l
li
ngasi nt hepr evi
oust woki l
li
ngswasused.I nhisdefence,the
accusedst atedt hatitwast r
uehehadki l
ledtwogi rl
sprevi
ouslyusingthesame
met hodbuthewasnotr esponsibl
ef orthi
spar t
icularki
l
li
ngf orwhichhewas
charged.

Thecourthel
dthatbecauseofthesimi
lar
it
yandt
heuniquemannerinwhichthe
ki
ll
i
ngswer ecarriedout,theaccusedwasundoubt
edlytheperpetr
ator.The
evi
denceoftheprevi
ouskil
l
ingswasadmitt
ed.

3.Topr
ovet
hecommi
ssi
onofanact

Thegener alruleist
hatmerepropensitycannotbeusedtoshowcommi ssi
onof
subsequentactbyt hesameper son.Consequentl
yifi
tisfoundthatt
heaccused
personhadpr evi
ousl
ycommi t
tedt hr
eesimilaract
sitisnotsafetorushtothe
conclusi
ont hatthesamepersonhascommi t
tedthesubsequentact
.

Dependi
ngont hecircumstancesofapar t
icul
arcasehowev er,suchsi
milar
it
y
maybeusedt oprovet hecommi ssionofanof f
ence.Anexampl ewoul
dbe
whereaser i
esofact sl eadto ar easonableconcl
usionthatt heywerenot
acci
dent
albutthattheywer ecausedbyhumani nter
fer
ence.Itmaybesaf eto
concl
udethathumanbeingscommi tt
edt hem.

I
nRv
.Smi
th(
1915)11Cr
.AppRep.229

25
Theaccusedper sonwaschar gedwiththeoffenceofmur deri
nghiswifewhohad
beenfounddeadi nthebathtub.Evidencewasadducedt otheeffectthatbefore
thi
sdeath,theaccusedper sonhadt akenoutani nsurancepol
icyinr espectof
theli
feofhiswi fe.Thepr osecuti
onadducedev i
dencet otheeffectthatbefore
thi
sparti
culardeath,theaccusedper sonhadbeenmar ri
edtotwoot herwomen
i
nf av
ourofwhom hehadt akenoutl i
feinsur
ancepol i
ciesandwhohadal sodied
undersi
milarcir
cumst ances.

Thecourthel
dthatevi
denceoft heprevi
ousdeathswasadmi ssibl
etoshowthat
thedeathwasnotaccidentalandtoshowt hattheaccusedpersonhadcri
minal
i
ntenttounl
awful
lybenefi
tfrom t
heinsurancecover
.

FACTSSHOWI
NGCOURSEOFBUSI
NESS

Undersect
ion16whenther
eisaquest
ionwhetherapar
ti
cularactwasdone,
the
exi
stenceofanycour
seofbusi
nessaccor
dingtowhichitnatural
l
ywouldhave
beendone,i
srel
evant
.

I
ll
ust
rat
ion:

Thequesti
oniswhet
herapar ti
cularl
etterwasdispat
ched.Thef actt
hati
twas
theordi
nar
ycour
seofbusinessf oral
llett
ersputinacertainpl
acet obecarr
ied
tothepost
,andt
hepart
icul
arlett
erwasputi nthatpl
ace,arerel
evant.

Thequest
ioni
s,whet
herapar
ti
cularl
ett
err
eachedA.Thefactthatitwaspost
ed
i
nduecourse,
andwasnotret
urnedthr
oughthepostof
fi
ce,
isrelevant
.

Thepostingofal ett
ermaybeappr ovedbyt heper
sonwhopost edit
,orby
showingfact
sfrom whicht
heposti
ngmaybepr esumed.Forinstance,evi
dence
ofposti
ngmaybegi venbyprov
ingthatt
helet
terwasdeli
ver
edt oacl er
kwhose
dutyi
twast oputi
tint
oapostbox.

Proofofpost i
ng,rai
sesapr esumpti
onthatitreacheditsdesti
nationi ndue
course.Thepost-markont heenvel
opeispri
maf aci
eevidenceofthedat e,ti
me
andpl aceofposti
ng.Fur t
her,whentheacknowledgmentofar egister
edl et
ter
comes back( tothe sender)wi t
h a si
gnatur
e purpor
ti
ng to be thatoft he
addressee,t
her
eisapr esumptionoft
hefactofservi
ce.

REVI
SIONQUESTI
ONS.

26
1.Whati
sthedi
ff
erencebet
weenr
elev
anceandadmi
ssi
bil
i
ty?

2.Afacti
sall
owedtobeprov
edbecausei
tisextri
cabl
yconnect
edwi
tht
he
f
actini
ssue.Di
scusst
hedoct
ri
neofresgestae.

3.Similarf
actevi
denceref
erstoevi
denceoffact
s,whicharesimi
lart
othe
factsunderenqui
ry,whi
chhavebeendoneatdiff
erentti
mesandplaces.
Discusstherel
evanceofsuchevi
denceandtheconditi
onsimposed
thereto.

4.Thebasisofsect
ion9Cap80i
stoexpl
ainori
ntr
oduceaf
acti
nissueor
rel
evantf
act.Di
scuss.

27
 CHAPTER3

3.ADMI
SSI
ONSANDCONFESSI
ONS

AnAdmi ssi
onisdefi
nedbysection17asast atement,oralordocumentary
whi
chsuggestsanyi
nfer
encesastoanyfactini
ssueorr el
evantfact
,andwhich
i
s made by any ofthe per
sons and undert
he circumstances,herei
naf
ter
ment
ioned.

An ‘Admi ssi
on’i sa st atementoff actwhi ch waivesordi spenseswi t
ht he
productionofev i
dencebyconcedi ngt hatthefactassertedbyt heopponenti s
true.Admi ssionsar eadmi t
tedbecausetheconductofapar t
ytoapr oceedingin
respectt othemat teri
ndi spute,whetherbyact s,speech,orwr i
ti
ng,whi chis
clearl
yinconsistentwiththet r
uthofhiscontent
ioni safactrel
evanttotheissue.
Admi ssi
onsar eav eryweakki ndofevidenceandt hecour tmayrejectthem ifi
t
i
ssat isf
iedfrom othercircumstancesthattheyareuntrue.

Itisi mmat eri

altowhom anadmi ssioni smade. Anadmi ssionmadet oa
strangeri sr el
evant.InEngl ishl aw theterm‘ admission’isusedi nci vi
lcases,
wher east het erm‘confession’isusedi ncr i
minalcasesasacknowl edgementof
guilt
.Aconf essi
onisanadmi ssi
onmadeatanyt i
mebyaper sonchar gedwitha
cri
me,st at i
ngorsuggest i
ngt hei nf
erencet hathecommi t
tedthecr ime.Thusi t
canbesai dt hataconf essioni sonespeci esofadmi ssionnamel y,anadmi ssi
on
consisti
ngofadi rectasser t
ion,byt heaccusedi nacr iminalcase,oft hemain
factchar gedagai nsthim,orsomef actessent i
altothechar ge.Aconf essi
onto
beadmi ssibleinev i
dencemustbev oluntary.Therefore,allconfessionswould
beadmi ssions,butal ladmi ssioncannotbecal l
edconf essions.( Thet opi
cis
ful
lydiscussedundert het opic‘Confessions’)
.

Admi
ssi
onsar
ebr
oadl
ycl
assi
fi
edi
ntot
wocat
egor
ies:

a)Judi
cial
admi
ssi
ons,
and

b)Ext
ra-
judi
ci
aladmi
ssi
ons.

Judici
aladmi ssi
onsareformalAdmissionsmadeincontempl at
ionofthesuitor
thoset hatar eadmitt
ed inthecourseoft heproceedings.Extra-
judi
cialare
i
nformaladmi ssi
onsmadewhennol i
tigati
oni
santi
cipat
ed.Judi ci
alAdmissions
beingmadei nthecasear eful
l
ybindingont hepar
tywhomakest hem.They
consti
tut eawaiverofproof
.Theycanbemadet hefoundationsoftherightsof
theparties.

Ext
ra-
judi
cialadmi
ssi
onsar
eal
sobi
ndi
ngont
hepar
tyagai
nstwhom t
heyar
eset

28
up.Unlikej
udi
cialadmissi
ons,t
heyarebi
ndingonlypar
tial
l
yandnotfull
yexcept
i
ncaseswher et
heyoper ateasorhav
etheeffectofest
oppel(
ref
.Secti
on24), i
n
whichtheyar
efull
ybindingandmayconst
itutethef
oundati
onofther
ightsofthe
par
ties.

Sect
ions18and19indicat
ethepersonbywhom anadmi
ssi
onmustbemade.
Sect
ion18l
aysdownfiv
eclassesofper
sonswhocanmakeadmi
ssi
ons

a) Partytothepr oceeding
b) Agentaut hori
zedbysuchpar ty
c) Partysuingorsuedi narepresentati
vecharact
ermakingadmi ssionswhil
e
holdingsuchachar acter
d) Personwhohasanypr opri
etaryorpecuniar
yint
eresti
nthesubj ectmatt
er
oftheproceedi ngdur i
ngthecont i
nuanceofsuchinter
est
e) Personfrom whom t heparti
est othesuithavederi
vedthei
rinteresti
nthe
subjectmat t
eroft hesuitduringtheconti
nuanceofsuchinter
est .

Theadmi ssi
onsofanagentar eadmissi
blebecausethepri
ncipalisboundbyt he
act
sofhi sagentdonei nthecourseofbusi nessandwithi
nt hescopeofhi s
aut
horit
y.Ev enanadmissionmadei nconfi
dencetoalegaladviserorperhapsto
awife,isreceivabl
eifprovedbyat hi
rdparty.Ont heotherhand,asol i
cit
or’
s
admissi
oni nordertobi
ndhiscli
entmusthav ebeenmadetot heoppositeparty.

Theobjectofsect ion9i snott

ol aydownt hatcertai
nstatement sarerel
evantor
admissi
blebutmer el
ytoaddt ot hecategor yofpersonsbywhom ast atement
maybemadebef oreitcanbeconsi deredtobeanadmi ssionwithi
nthet er
msof
theAct.Thi ssect ionformsanexcept i
ont ot herul
et hatstatementsmadeby
str
angerstoapr oceedi ngarenotadmi ssibleasagai nsttheparti
es.Thus,inan
acti
onbyt hetrusteesofabankr upt,thelatter
’sadmissions,madebef oretheact
.
ofbankruptcy
,areadmi ssi
blei
npr oofofthepet it
ioni
ngcreditor
’sdebt

Secti
on20f or
msanot herexceptiontotherul
ethatadmissionsbystrangerstoa
sui
tarenotrel
evant.Underi tt
headmi ssionofathi
rdpersonarealsor ecei
vabl
e
i
nev i
denceagainstandhavef requent
lybeenheldtobeinf actbi
ndingupon, t
he
part
ywhohasexpr essl
yreferr
edanot hertohimforinf
ormat i
oninr egardtoan
uncert
ainordi
sputedmat t
er.

I
ll
ust
rat
ion

Thequest
ioni
swhet hert
hehorsesoldbyAtoBissound.AsaystoB“ Goand
askC;Cknowsallabouti
t”
.C’sstat
ementr
egardi
ngt
hesoundnessofthehor
se
wil
lbeanadmi ssiononA’ spartandA wil
lbeestoppedfrom denyi
ngthe
asser
ti
onmadebyCt oB.

I
far
efer
encei
smadeov
eradi
sput
edmat
tert
oat
hir
dper
son,noti
nthenat
ure

29
ofasubmi ssiont oar bit
rat
ion,butratherasanai dtot
hesettl
ementofthe
di
fferenceexistingbetweent heparti
esandt oenablet
hepar
ti
esthemsel
vesto
eff
ectaset tl
ementont heinformat
ion,insuchcasest
hepar
tyisboundbythe
declarat
ionoft hepersonr ef
erredtointhesamemannerandtothesameext
ent
asifitwasmadebyhi mself.

Theil
lust
rat
iontosect i
on20istakenfrom theEngl
ishcase,Wil
liamsvInnzs(1
Camp364),whereLor dEllenbor
oughr emarked;“
Ifamanr ef
ersanotherupon
anyparti
cul
arbusinesst oathi
rdperson,heisboundbywhatt hist
hir
dperson
saysordoesconcerningitasmuchasifthathadbeensaidordonebyhi msel
f”
.

Toattr
actt heoperati
onofsect i
on20,t her
emustbeanexpr essreferencef or
i
nfor
mat ioninor
dert omaket hest atementoftheper sonrefer
redt oadmi ssi
ble.
I
napplicati
onofthispri
ncipleitdoesnotmat t
erwhet herthequestionreferredbe
oneoflaworoff act,
whet hertheper sontowhom referenceismadehasordoes
nothaveanypar ti
cularknowledgeont hesubject
,orwhet herthestatementof
ther
efereebeadducedi nev i
dencei nanacti
oncontract,orinanact i
onfort ort
.

Proofofadmi
ssi
onsagai
nstper
sonsmaki
ngt
hem,andbyoront
hei
rbehal
f
secti
on21

I
ll
ust
rat
ion:

ThequestionbetweenAandBi s,whetheracer t
aindeedi
sorisnotforged.A
affi
rmsthatiti
sgenuine,Bthatitisfor
ged.Amaypr oveastat
ementbyBt hat
thedeedisgenuineandBmaypr oveastatementbyAt hatt
hedeedi sfor
ged.
ButAcannotpr oveast at
ementbyhi mselfthatthedeedisgenui
ne,norcanB
proveastatementbyhimselft
hatthedeedisf or
ged.

Thi
ssectionl
ay sdownasagener alr
ule,thatadmissi
onsar erelev
ant
,andmay
beprovedagainstthepersonwhomakest hem orhi
sr epr
esentati
vei
nint
erest
,
andifdulyproved,thoughnotconcl
usive,aresuffi
cientevi
denceofthefacts
admit
ted.

Theef
fectusuall
ygiv
entoadmi ssi
onsprovedagainstpersonswhomaket hem
i
sdest
ructi
ve,andnotconst
ruct
ive,
whethertheyaretr
ueornotdoesnotmat ter
.
Theeff
ecti
vepoi nti
sthattheydestroythef or
ceofi nconsi
stentst
atements
madel
ater.

Thepersonagainstwhom anadmissionisprovedi
satli
bertytoshowthatitwas
mist
akenoruntr ue.Whenanadmi ssionisdulyprov
ed,andt heper
sonagai nst
whom itispr
oveddoesnotsat i
sfythecourtthati
twasmi stakenoruntr
ue,t he
cour
tmaydeci det hecaseinaccordancewi t
hsuchadmi ssi
on.Aner roneous
admissi
ondoesnotbi ndtheper
sonmaki ngsuchadmissi
on.

30
Except
ions

Admi ssi
onscannotbepr
ovedby,oronbehal
foft
heper
sonwhomakest
hem,
exceptint
hefol
lowi
ngthr
eecases:

a)Wheni ti
sofsuchanatur
et hat
,ift
hepersonmakingi
twer
edead,
itwoul
dbe
rel
evantasbet
weenthi
rdpersonsundersecti
on33.

b)Whentheadmissionconsist
sofastatementoftheexi
stenceofanyst
ateof
mindandbody(r
elevantori
nissue)madeatoraboutthet
imewhensuchast at
e
ofmindorbodyexist
ed,andisaccompaniedbyconductr
enderi
ngit
sfal
sehood
i
mprobabl
e.

Il
lust
rati
on:Ai saccusedofreceivi
ngstolengoodsknowi ngthem t
obest ol
en.
Heof fer
st oprovethatheref
usedt osellthem bel
owtheirval
ue.Amaypr ove
thesestatements,t
houghtheyareadmi ssionsbecausetheyareexplanat
oryof
conductinfl
uencedbyfact
sinissue.

c)I
fiti
srel
evantot
her
wiset
hanasanadmi
ssi
on.

Thi
sexcepti
oni sintendedtoapplytocasesinwhi chthestatementi ssoughtto
beusedinevidenceot herwiset
hanasanadmi ssion,forinstance,aspartofthe
ResGestae,orasast at
ementaccompany i
ngorexpl aini
ngpar ticul
arconduct.
Thus,astat
ementt hatisinadmissi
bleasanadmi ssi
onundert hegeneralrul
e
canbemadeadmi ssibl
eassuchbyr efer
encetothisexception.

ORALADMI
SSI
ONSASTOCONTENTSOFDOCUMENTS

TheEngl i
shLaw onthepointwaslai
ddowni nSlat
teri
evPool eywhereitwas
heldthattheoraladmissi
onofapar t
yast othecontent
soft hedocumentis
admissibl
eev enwhenthedocumentmi ghthav
ebeenpr oducedasevident
iar
y
proofagainsthi
m,whensuchcont
entsaredir
ect
lyi
nissue.

Althought hi
sleadingdecisi
onhasheldthefiel
dinEnglandsince1840,ithas
receivedmuchcr i
ti
ci
sm andhasbeenappl i
edwithseveralmodif
icat
ions.The
decisi
onwasdi sapprov
edintheIr
ishcaseofLawlessvDuealewher ethej
udge
remar kedthatt
hedoct ri
nelai
ddowninSlat
teri
evPooley“ isamostdangerous
propositi
on”.

I
ti stobenot edt hatsecti
on22oft heActhasr ej
ectedtherulelaiddowni n
Slatt
eri
evPool eyandhasadopt edtheviewoftheIr
ishcase,LawlessvDueal e.
Theef f
ectoft hissectionisthatthecontent
sofadocumentmaybepr ovedby
thewr i
ttenadmi ssi
onoft hepersonagainstwhom i
tistobeused, butcannotbe
provedbyor aladmi ssi
on,exceptwhenthedocumentitsel
fisnotfort
hcomingfor
oneoft hereasonsment i
onedin

31
sect
ion68.

Admi
ssi
onsmadewi
thoutpr
ejudi
cei
nci
vi
lcases.

Secti
on23l ay
sdownt hati
ncivi
l(notcri
mi nal
)cases,anadmi
ssi
onisnot
rel
evantwheni
tismade
i
. Uponanexpr essi
oncondi
ti
onthatev
idenceofi
tisnott
obegi
ven,or

i
i
. Undercir
cumstancesfrom whichthecour
tcaninfert
hatt
hepar
ti
es
agr
eedtoget
herthatev
idenceofiti
snott
obegi
ven.

Thesectiongi
vesaff
ecttot mI
heMaxi nt
erestr
eiPubl
icaeutfini
sli
ti
um (
iti
sfor
theint
erestofthestat
et hatt
her
eshouldbeanendofl i
ti
gati
on)
.I ti
stobe
remember edt
hatt
hissecti
ondoesnotappl
ytocri
minalcases.

This sect
ion pr
otects communi cati
on made wit
houtprej
udice. Conf
identi
al
overt
uresofpacifi
cati
onbet weenl i
ti
gantsmadewithoutpr
ejudi
ceareexcl
uded
ongr oundsofPubl i
cPol i
cy.I tistobenot edthatundersecti
on23,certai
n
document si
ftheyarewr i
tt
en‘withoutprej
udi
ce’
wil
lbeadmissibl
e.

I
nEngl ishcases,
itwasobserv
edthatt
hewords‘WithoutPrejudice’si
mplymean
thi
s:“ Imakey ouanofferandifyoudonotacceptit,t
hisletterisnotbeused
againstme.”

I
thasbeenhel dthatsecti
on23doesnotpr otectalll
ett
ers,
merelybecauset
hey
areheadedwi t
hthewor ds‘Wi
thoutPrej
udice’
.Atbest ,i
tonlyshowsthedesir
e
ont hepartofonepar tytohav ethepriv
ilege,buttheotherpartymustalso
respectsuchpri
vi
lege.

Admi ssionsare notconclusiv

e proofoft he mat teradmitt
ed butt heymay
operateasestoppelsundersection24.Admi ssionshift
stheonustot heperson
admittingthefactont hepri
nciplethatwhatapar t
yhimselfadmitstobet rue
mayr easonabl
ybepr esumedt obeso, anduntilthepresumpti
onisrebutted,
the
factadmi tt
edmustbet akentobeest abli
shed.

Anadmi ssi
onisnotconclusi
veastothet r
uthofthemat t
erst
atedt
herei
n.Itis
onl
yapi eceofev i
dence,underwhichi tismade. I tcanbeshownt o be
err
oneousoruntrue,solongasthepersont owhom itwasmadehasnotact ed
uponitt
ohi sdet
ri
ment,whenitmightbecomeconclusiv
ebywayofestoppel
.

CONFESSI
ONS

A conf
essi
onisanadmissioni
nast atement,whichisor alorwri
tt
en,whi
ch
suppor
tsanyinf
erencet
ot hef
actini ssueorr el
evantfact.Itcaneit
herbe
for
malwhichi
smadeduringapre-
tr
iale.g.pl
eadi
ngsori tcanbeinf
ormalwhi
ch

32
i
smadedur
ingt
hecour
seoft
hepr
oceedi
ngs.

Thedecisi
onoft
hepri
vycounci
lint
heI
ndianappealofSwamivKi ngEmperori
s
adeci
sion,whi
chhasbeenreli
edonbytheEastAfrican,cour
tsi
nwhichitwas
sai
d:

“Moreoveraconf essi
onmustadmi tint ermseithertheoff
enceoratany
rat
e subst ant
iall
y al
lt he facts which constit
utet he of
fence. The
admission of a gr avel
y i ncr
iminating fact, even a concl usi
vel
y
i
ncriminatingfactisnoi tsel
faconf essione.g.anadmi ssionthatthe
accusedi stheownerandwasi nther ecentpossessionoftheknifeand
therevolverwhichcausedadeat hwi t
hnoexpl anationofanyotherman’s
possession”.

Notethatthe inclusion i
n a conf
essi
on ofa sel
f-
excul
pat
ory mat
teri
na
st
atementofconfessiondoesnotmakeitaconf
essi
on.

Excul
patorymat t
erinaconf essi
onisamat t
eroffacts,whi
char eadoptedor
i
ntendedtof r
eethemakerf r
om thebl
ameofanactt hatheadmits.Forexample
i
faper sonadmi tshekill
edawomanbutatt heti
meheKi l
ledherhewasso
drunkthathedidnotknowwhathewasdoi ng.Thi
sisnotaconf essi
onbecause
oftheexculpat
orymattercontai
nedi
nthathewasnott oblame.

Secti
on25cap80say st hataconf essi
oncompr i
seswordsorconductora
combination ofwords and conductf r
om whi ch,whet
hert aken al
one orin
conj
unctionwi t
hotherf
actsproved,aninferencemayreasonablybedrawnthat
thepersonmaki ngi
thascommi tt
edanof fence.

ADMI
SSI
BILI
TYOFCONFESSI
ON

Basi
call
yconfessionofacri
mei sonl yadmissibl
eifi
twasmadev olunt
aril
yi.
e.it
wasnotmadei nconsequenceofanunl awfuli
nducementorthr
eatofatempor al
nat
ureheldoutt otheaccusedper sonbyt hepersoninauthor
it
y.Thej udgeor
magist
ratecanusehi sdiscret
ionev enwher eaconf essi
onhasbeengi vento
di
sall
owt hest
atementtobepr oveninev i
dence.

A confessi
oncanal so beadmi ssiblewher et hestatementwasobt ainedi n
cir
cumstances,whichshouldrenderitsr ecept
ionunfai
rtotheaccusedperson.In
cri
minallaw,admissionscanbemadebyapl eaofguilt
yorbyaconf ession.In
thecaseofNj ugunavRi twasstatedt hatitisincumbentupontheprosecution
toproveaffi
rmativel
yt hatsuchconf essionsarev ol
unt
aril
ymadeandwer enot
obtai
nedbyimpr operorunlawfulquestioningorothermethods.

Moreover
,iti
sthedutyofthejudgeormagist
rat
et oexaminewi t
htheclosest
car
e and att
ent
ion al
lthe ci
rcumst
ances i
n which a confessi
on had been
obt
ained bypol
iceoffi
cer
sf r
om theaccused person par
ti
cular
lywhen that

33
person had been i
n pol
i
ce cust
ody f
ora l
ong per
iod bef
ore maki
ng hi
s
confessi
on.

Vol
unt
ari
ness

InRvBal dry,aconst abletoldtheprisonert

hatheneednotsayany t
hingto
i
ncriminatehimself;howeverwhathedi dsaywouldbet akendownandusedas
evi
denceagai nsthim.Thet r
ialmagist
ratePar
keBsai dthatinor
dert
orendera
confessionadmi ssi
bleinev i
denceitmustbeperfect
lyvolunt
aryandt
hereisno
doubtt hatinducementi nthenat ur
eoft hepromiseort hr
eatsbyapersonin
authori
tyvit
iatesaconfession.

Rati
onaleofvolunt
ari
nessi
sthatt
her
eisahi
ghpr
obabi
l
ityt
hatwhat
everonei
s
confessi
ngistr
ue.

InKal umavR, theappel l

antswer econv ictedofmur deringtwowomeni nKeny a.
Thepol i
cealsowant edtheaccusedi nUganda.Thewomenhadbeensentt ospy
ont hemen.Ther ewer ei nquiriesconcer ni
ngt hewher eaboutsoftheappel l
ants
beforet hewomen’ sdeat h,whi cht heappel l
antsknew.Thi swasadmi ttedas
evi
dencef orprovidi
ngamot ivef ormur der.Theappel lantsfledbackt oUganda
andwhi l
et heretheymadei nv oluntaryst atementsafterbeingbeat enup.They
were br oughtback t o Keny a and made st at
ement st ot he Keny an police
vol
unt aril
ywhi chst atement swer esi milart otheonesmadei nUganda. They
appeal edclaiminginv ol
unt ar
yconf essi
ons.Thecour treliedon
Section28whi chsect ioni sofgener alappl i
cati
onandexcl udest hepr oofof
confessionsal l
egedl ymadebypr isonersi npolicecustodyunlessint hepresence
ofamagi strat
eorapol iceofficerabov et her ankorequi val
enttoaninspect or.

RvThompson.I
nthi
scaset
heaccusedper
sonwast
oldt
hef
oll
owi
ng,

“Tellmewher
et hethi
ngsareandIshallbef
avorabl
etoy
ou.Unlessy
ou
givemeasati
sfactor
yaccountIwi
l
ltakeyoubef
oreamagist
rat
e.”

Thecour theldthati
ntheci r
cumst anceaconfession,whi
chwasobt ai
nedaft
er
thi
sstatementwasmadet oaccusedper soncouldnotbev ol
unt
aryastherewas
aninducement .Thethreatorinducementinsection26hast obeexter
nal.The
thr
eatorpr omiseinor
dertoleadt otheexcl
usi
onneednotbeexpr ess.Itcanbe
i
mpl i
edont hepersoninauthori
ty.

Inducements can take a vari

etyoff orms. Ifv i
olence i
s used orthreat
s,
subsequentconfessionswil
lnotbeadmi tted.Whereani nducementisagentle
kinde.g.“Tellmet het r
uthandIwi l
lbeki ndtoy ou,
”itwillnev
erthel
essbe
admi t
tedbecausetheyconsistofthr
eatinessence.

I
fthecourtunder
standsorappreci
atest
hatthedurat
ionbet
weeninducementor
t
hreatandtheact
ualconfessi
onissuchthatther
eisatimespani
nbet ween,
the

34
confessionmaybeadmit
tedasevidence.Thei
nducementmadethreeweeks
beforetheact
ual
conf
essi
oncannotbesaidt
ohav
eoperatedasi
nducement
.

PROCEDUREOFTAKI
NGACONFESSI
ON

Aconf essionmadebyt heaccusedt othepoliceoff

icercannotbepr ovedagainst
him unl essitismadet oapol i
ceof fi
ceroforabov eorequi val
enttoar ankofan
i
nspect or. Al
ternati
velywher ethest atementi smadet osuchapol i
ceof fi
cer
holdi ngfir
storsecondcl assmagi steri
alpower sandact i
ngi nthecapacityofa
policeof fi
cer,t
heconf ession, i
fmadebef orehim canbeadmi ssi
ble.Ther eason
fort hisisthatanof fi
ceroft hisranki ssuffi
cient
lyi
ntell
igentandassuchabl eto
dischar gehisdut iesaccor dinglyaspar li
amentsaw i t.Sub- sect
ion( b)comes
abouti nthedistri
cts,whichal lowt hepolicetoactasaDi stri
ctOffi
cerandal so
asamagi str
ate(inmar gi
nal areas).

Notethatwhentheaccusedpersononapr el
imi
naryinquir
ymakesast at
ement,
therecor
doftheevi
dencemustbecer t
if
iedassoonasr ecordedot
her
wiseitwi
l
l
notbeadmitt
edasevidenceandoral
evidencewi
llnotbeallowed.

THELANGUAGEASPECTOFCONFESSI
ON

Section22( b)Poli
ceActgi vespowert ot hepolicetor ecordstat
ement sof
personswhom t hepolicearet ochargeorhav ebeencharged.Suchst at
ements
havet oberecordedandsi gnedbyt heaccusedperson.Thest at
ementhast obe
writ
ten inthe language the accused person can understand. Ifthe poli
ce
understands the l
anguage t he accused person used,he shouldr ecordthe
confessioninthatl
anguage.Ther ati
onal
eher eist
oensuret hattheor
iginal
it
yof
theintendedmeaningisr et
ained.

I
nOchaus/ oOsigaivR,theaccusedper sonwaschar gedwi t
hmur der.Hemade
ast at
ementt o asub-inspectori nhi smot hertongueTeso andr ecordedi n
Kiswahil
ibyapol iceconstable,thenr ecordedi nEnglishbyt hesub- inspector
.
Theappellantagreedtothecor rectnessoft hestatementandsi gnedont hatof
AtesoandKi swahil
i.Ontri
altheor igi
nalstatementofhi smot hertonguewasl ef
t
outasev i
dence.TheCour tofAppeal hel
dt hattheori
ginalstatement sinhisown
l
anguageshoul dbeproducedatt rialaswell asanEngl i
shtranslat
ion.

RETRACTEDANDREPUDI
ATEDCONFESSI
ONS

Thisisast atement,whichtheaccusedpersonhasmadebutwi shest

owi thdr
aw
perhapsbecausehewasf orcedtomakei torbecauseofanyotherreason.As
forar epudiatedconfessi
ont heaccusedpersondeniescomplet
elyt
hatheev er
madet hest atement.Inadmissibi
l
itybot
haretreat
edinthesameway .

35
InthecaseofTuwameivUgandat hecour tnotedthatwithr et
ractedconf ession
asamat t
erofpracti
ceandprudenceat ri
alcourtshoulddirectit
smi ndt hatitis
dangeroustoactupont heret
ract
edst at
ementi ntheabsenceofcor robor ati
on.
Butt hecourtcanr elyonsuchconf essionifi tisfull
ysat isfi
edt hati nt he
cir
cumstancesoft hecasetheconfessionmustbet rue.Not ethatev eni fthe
statementisr
etr
actedtheaccusedpersoncanst i
llbeconvicted.

Not ealsothatcorrobor
ati
oni snotaruleoflaw butaruleofpr act
ice.Acour t
canst il
ladmitsuchaconf essi
onifiti
ssati
sfiedinthemanneroft hecaseand
thereforecangoaheadandconv i
ct.Asalreadynot edar et
ractedconfessi
on
mustbesuppor tedbyindependentrel
i
ableevidencecorrobor
ati
ngiti nmater
ial
parti
culars. Theuset obemadeofsuchconf essi
oni samat terofprudence
ratherthanlaw.

Thr
eei
mpor
tantr
ulesr
egar
dingconf
essi
ons,
whi
char
eret
ract
ed,
are:

a)Aconf
essi
oni
snotbei
ngr
egar
dedasi
nvol
unt
arymer
elybecausei
tis
r
etr
act
ed.

b)Asagainstt
hemakeroftheconf
essi
ontheretr
act
edconfessi
onmay
for
mthebasisofaconv
ict
ioni
fiti
sbeli
evedtobetrueandvol
unt
ari
l
y
made.

c)Asagainsttheco- accused,theconfessi
onofaco- accusedcannotbe
tr
eatedassubst anti
veev i
denceandcanbepr essedintoev i
denceonly
whenthecourtisincli
nedtoacceptotherevi
denceandf eel
sthenecessit
y
ofseeki
nganassur anceinsupportofitsconcl
usiondeducibl
ef r
om the
sai
dev i
dence.

Incr
iminalcases,wher etheotherevidenceadducedagainstanaccusedper son
i
swhol l
yunsatisf
act or
yandt heprosecuti
onseekstorelyont heconfessi
onofa
co-
accusedperson, thepresumptionofinnocence,whi
chist hebasisofcri
mi nal
j
uri
sprudence,assiststheaccusedper sonandcompel sthecour ttorenderthe
ver
dictt
hatthechar geisnotproved.

Ext
ra–j
udi
cialConf
essi
ons

Extr
a-judi
cialconfessi
onsarethoseconfessions,whichar emadeei thertot he
Poli
ceort oanyot herper
sonotherthanj
udgesandmagi st
rates.Thecour talong
wit
hot herev i
denceinconvi
cti
nganaccused, ifv
oluntar
y,canr elyuponanext ra-
j
udici
al confessi
on.Theconfessionwil
lhavetobepr ovedjustlikeanyot herfact.
Thev alueofev i
denceastotheconfessi
on,justl
ikeanyotherev i
dence,depends
upont hev eraci
tyoft hewit
nesst owhom i tismade.Usual l
yasamat terof

36
cauti
on,courtsrequi
resomemat eri
alcorr
oborat
ion t
o such a confessi
onal
stat
ement,i
.e.cor
robor
ati
ont
hatconnect
stheaccusedpersonwi
tht hecri
me.

DI
FFERENCEBETWEENCONFESSI
ONANDADMI
SSI
ON.

1.Aconf essioni sast at ementmadebyanaccusedper sonadmi t t

ingt hathe
hasei thercommi ttedanof f enceoratanyr ate,substant i
allyal lthef act sthat
const it
utet heof fence.Conf essionsf indpl acei ncriminalpr oceedi ngsonl y
.
Anadmi ssionisagener alt er m, whichsuggest sani nferenceast oanyf actin
i
ssueoranyr elev antfact .Admi ssi
onsar egener all
yusedi nci vilproceedi ngs,
yett heymayal sobeusedi ncr i
mi nalpr oceedi ngs.Ev eryconf essi oni san
admi ssionbutev er yadmi ssi oni nacr imi nalcasei snotaconf essi on. A
statementmaybei rr
el ev antasaconf ession,buti tmayber elev antasan
admi ssion.Ast atementnotadmi ssibleasaconf essionmayy et,f orot her
purposes, beadmi ssibleasanadmi ssionasagai nsttheper sonwhomadei t
.
(Sect i
on21) .
2.A conf ession,i fdel i
ber atel yand v olunt aril
ymade,maybe accept ed as
evidencei nitsel foft hemat tersconf essed,t houghasr ul
eofpr udencet he
courts may r equi re cor robor at
ive ev idence,butan admi ssi on i s nota
concl usiveproofoft hemat tersadmi t
tedt houghi tmayoper ateasest oppel.
3.Aconf essional way sgoesagai nsttheper sonmaki ngi t
,exceptundersect ion
32,underwhi cht heconf essi onofoneort womor eaccusedj oi ntlyt ri
edf or
theof f
encecanbet akeni nt oconsi der ationagai nstt heco- accused. An
admi ssion,ont hecont rary ,maybeusedonbehal foft heper sonmaki ngit
undert heexcept ionspr ov i
dedi nsect ion21butanadmi ssi onbyoneof
sever aldefendant si nasui tisnoev idenceagai nstanot herdef endant .

Thepri
v ycounci
linSwamivki ngEmperor,asstat
edabov
edi
scussedt
he
di
sti
nct
ionbetweenaconf
essi
onandanadmissi
on.

REVI
SIONEXERCI
SE

1.Whati st hediffer
encebet weenaconf essi
onandanadmi ssi
on?
2.Discusst hepri
nciplesgoverni
ngtherecepti
onofaconf ession?
3.Elucidatet hediff
erenttypesofadmissions?
4.A r etract ed confession should be cont rast
ed from a r epudi
ated
confessi onbecausei nonet heaccusedper sonagreest omaki ngitbut
i
nv oluntar i
lyf
oroner easonoranot herandi ntheother headamant l
y
refusesev ermakingit.Expound.

37
 CHAPTER4

4.EVI
DENCEGENERALLYHELDTOBEI
NADMI
SSI
BLE

HEARSAYEVI
DENCE

OBJECTIVE:attheendofthi
schaptert
hest udentshouldunder
standt
het
hree
majorexcl
usi
onaryr
ulesofev
idencei
npart
icular
,theyshoul
dknow:

 Thedef
ini
ti
onofhear
sayandi
tsmaj
ori
tyexcept
ion

 Thediff
erencesinoperati
onbetweenordi
narywi
tnessopi
nion,exper
t
opi
nionandev i
dencegi
venonanult
imat
eissue

 Thepr
inci
plesgov
erni
ngt
hegener
alexcl
usi
onofchar
act
erev
idence

38
Alloralev i
dencemustbedi recti.e.beadducedbyt hepersonwhoper ceivest hat
evidence.Ahear saystat ementi sonemadebyanyper sonwhoi snotcalledasa
witnessandwhi chisof feredinev i
dencetopr ovethetruthofthefactscont ai
ned
i
nt hest atement.I tisinadmi ssiblegenerall
y.Ifthepur poseismer el
yt oinform
thecour tthatthest at
ementwasmade, thent hestatementisnothear say.E.g.in
adi sputebetweenPandD, t
hei ssuewhet herDwasi nNai r
obionacer t
aindat e
i
saf actinissue.Passer t
st hatXt oldhi
mt hatDwasi nNairobi
.Thiswoul dbe
i
nadmi ssi
bleifPwant sthecour ttobeli
evei nX’sst at
ement.I nSubramani am v
Publ i
cPr osecutor(1956)1WLR965sssssi twasnot edthus:

“Evi
dencegiv enofast at
ementmadet oawi t
nessbyaper sonwhoi snot
call
ed asa wi tnessmayormaynotbehear say.I ti
shear sayand
i
nadmi ssi
blewhent heobjectoftheev
idenceistoestabl
ishthetruthof
whatiscont ainedi nthestatement. I
tisnothearsayandi sadmissibl
e
wheni tispr oposedt oestabli
shbythisevidencenotthet r
uthoft he
stat
ementbutt hefactthatitwasmade.”

Hear
sayev
idencei
sunr
eli
abl
ebecause:

 Theorigi
nalmakerofthest
atementisnotincourt
 Thestatementi
snotmadeonoat h
 Itfol
lows thatthe makeroft he stat
ementwas notsubj
ectt
o cr
oss-
examinati
on
 Thedemeanoroft hemakercannotbeobserved
 Thereisadangeroffr
audul
entinvent
ion.

Except
ionst
othegener
alr
ule:

Thelawofevi
dencerecogni
zesthathearsaymaybeadmi ssi
bleundercer
tai
n
ci
rcumst
ances;t
hesearegeneral
lysetoutundersect
ion33aswel lassecti
ons
37-41KenyaEvi
denceAct.

Theexcept
ionsi
ncl
udet
hef
oll
owi
ng:

a)St
atement
sbyper
sonswhocannotbecal
l
edaswi
tnesses

b)St
atement
smadeunderspeci
alci
rcumst
ances

STATEMENTSMADEBYPERSONSWHOCANNOTBECALLEDASWI
TNESSES

39
Secti
on33pr ov
idest
hathear
saywi
l
lbeadmi
ssi
blei
fthef
oll
owi
ngcondi
ti
ons
aresati
sfi
ed

 Whent
hemakeroft
hest
atementi
sdead(
dyi
ngdecl
arat
ions)

 Whent
hemakercannotbef
ound

I
nRvNdol o(
1926)10KLR11t hemakeroft hestatementhadalreadylef
t
theplaceofempl oymentandat temptstoservesummonsonhi m were
fut
il
e;thecourtheldthattheseat t
emptswerer easonableandthatthe
makercoul dnotbetracedandt hatitwaslawfultoconcludethathecould
notbef oundwithoutunreasonabledelayandsohi sevidencewasr ead
outincourt.

 Whenthemakeroft
hest
atementhasbecomei
ncapabl
eofgi
vi
ng
ev
idence

 Wher
etheat
tendanceoft
hemakercannotbepr
ocur
ed

 Wheretheattendanceoft
hemakercanonl
ybepr ocur
edwit
hgr
eat
amountofdelayandexpenseconsi
der
edunreasonabl
eint
he
ci
rcumstancesofthecase.

Thornhi
llvThornhi
llherethecourtwascal
l
edupontodeci
dewhetheri
twould
beexpensiv
eandunr easonabletogetawit
nesst
otest
if
yonadivorcematt
er
rat
herthangetanaf f
idavi
ttoproveAdul
ter
y.

Ift
heabovecondi
ti
onsaresati
sfi
edt
henhear
saywil
lbeadmi
ssi
bleunder
secti
on33.
thoughsuchevi
dencemustf
all
wit
hint
hefoll
owi
ngcat
egoriesof
evi
dence

a)Evi
denceorst
atementsmadebyaper
soni
nrel
ati
ont
othecauseofhi
s
deat
horcir
cumstancesoft
hedeat
h

b)St
atement
smadei
ntheor
dinar
ycauseofbusi
ness

c)St
atement
smadeagai
nstt
hei
nter
estoft
hemaker

d)St
atement
sexpr
essi
ngopi
niononapubl
i
cri
ghtorcust
om

e)St
atement
srel
ati
ngt
ofami
l
yaf
fai
rs

f
) St
atement
srel
ati
ngt
heexi
stenceofar
elat
ionshi
p

40
 g)Stat
ement
srel
ati
ngt
otr
ansact
ionspur
por
ti
ngt
ocr
eat
eorasser
ta
cust
om

h)St
atementsmadebysev
eral
per
sonsexpr
essi
ngt
hei
rfeel
i
ngsont
he
matteri
nquest
ion

DYI
NGDECLARATI
ONS

Section33(a)provi
dest hatastatementisadmi ssi
bleifitismadebyaper sonas
tothecauseofhi sdeat horthecircumstancesofthetransactionthatl
edtohis
death.Suchst at
ement sareadmi ssibl
ewhethertheyaremadeatt heti
met he
makeri scontemplat
ingdeat hornotandt heyareadmi ssibleonlyi
nproceedi
ngs
wheret hecauseofthemaker sdeathisinquestionbuttheywi ll
onlybe
admissiblei
ftheysatisfythefol
lowingconditi
ons:

1.Thest
atementmustbecompl
ete

I
nWaughvR1950(
AC)203

Themakerofthestat
ementfel
li
ntoacommawhi l
emakingastat
ementandhe
neverr
ecov
eredthepri
vycounci
lhel
dthatt
hest
atementwasnotadmi
ssibl
eas
i
twasnotcomplete.

I
nRvChar
lesDaki(
1960)EA34

Theaccusedper sonwaschar gedwithmur deront hebasi sofastatement

,which
thedeceasedper sonhadmadet ot
heinvestigati
ngof f
icer.Theof
f i
cerst
ated
thatint
hecourseofi nvesti
gati
ngtheoffencehehadv isi
tedthedeceased
personinhospit
al wherehehadbeenadmi t
tedasar esultofgunshotwounds
thepoli
ceoffi
cert henaskedthedeceasedper sonwhohadshothi m andthe
deceasedpersonr epli
ed“Charl
esDakihaski l
ledmeheshotmewi t
hagun, Isaw
hi
m wit
hagun,hewasonamotorcycl
e,JosephMukali
ngohadvisi
tedmeandI
wentt
othegar
agewit
hhim”att
hatpointadoctori
nter
rupt
edtheconver
sat
ion
andaskedtheof
fi
certoleavethedeceasedper
sonalone,thedeceasedperson
l
aterondiedi
nhospi
talandtheappell
antwasaccusedofhi smurder.
Thecourthel
dthatt
hatstatementwasnotadmi ssi
blebecausethedeceased
persondi
dnotcomplet
ei t
.

2.Thest
atementmustr
efert
othedeat
hoft
hemakerandnotany
oneel
se

I
ll
ust
rat
ion:

I
fanaccusedper sonAshoot
sBandCandt heybothdi
e;astat
ementbyBabout
theshooti
ngwill
onlybeadmissi
bleast
otheshoot
ingr
efer
ri
ngtoB’sdeat
hand
notC’sdeath.

41
 3.Thest
atementmustbepr
oxi
mat
etot
hecauseoft
hedeat
hoft
hemaker

I
nRvKabat
elei
ne(
1964)13EACA164

Theaccusedwasconv ictedfort hemur derofhisstepmot her

.Theonlyevi
dence
againsthim wascircumst anti
al evidencetotheeffectthatthedeceasedhad
madeacompl ai
ntt otheheadmanaboutt woday sbeforeherdeath.Inher
compl ai
ntshestatedt hattheaccusedper sonhadt hreatenedtoburndownher
hut.Onappeal t
hecour theldthatt hecomplaintmadet ot heheadmanwas
admi ssi
bleasady i
ngdecl ar
ationbecausei trel
atedtot hecauseofthedeceased
‘
sdeat hshehav i
ngdi edasar esultofwhatt hecourtfoundt obearson.

I
tshouldhoweverbenotedthatady i
ngdeclar
ationwoul
dnotsol el
ybeusedasa
basi
sforconvi
cti
onunlesstherei
scor r
oborat
iveevi
dence.InJasungas/o
AkumuvR( 1954)21EACA331accept anceofdeceasedstatementwit
hout
quest
ioni
sonlyinexcepti
onalcases.

STATEMENTSMADEI
NTHECOURSEOFBUSI
NESS

UnderSecti
on33(b)suchst at
ementswil
lbeadmissi
bleparti
cular
lyi
fthey
consi
stofamemor andum orentri
esmadeint
obooksorr ecordswhichare
usual
lykepti
ntheordi
narycourseofbusi
nessorwhicharemadei ntheordi
nar
y
di
schargeofaprof
essionalduty.

Alsoadmissi
blear
est at
ement sacknowledgi
ngrecei
ptofmoneyorgoodsorof
anydocumentswhichar eusedincommer ce,anydat
emadeinsuchent r
ieswil
l
beadmissibl
e.Thejusti
fi
cati
onist hatt
heyar
emadebef or
ethedisput
ear i
ses
anditi
stheref
orepresumedt hattheyaremadeingoodfai
thandthatt
heyar e
honestr
ecords.

I
nRvMasal u(1967)EA355thecour
thel
dthatapostmortem r
eportwas
admissi
bleundersecti
on33asadocumentmadeindischargeofpr
ofessi
onal
dut
y.

Commi ssionerofCust
omsvSKPanachand1961( EA)303
Thecourtdecl i
nedt
oadmitthemakingofaclauseusuall
yusedi
nbusi
ness
becauseitwasnotshownt hatt
hecall
ingoft
hewi t
nesswouldbeunr
easonabl
e
andunjustif
iabl
eint
hecir
cumstances.

STATEMENTSMADEAGAI
NSTTHEI
NTERESTOFTHEMAKER

Undersect
ion33(
C)ast
atementi
sadmi
ssi
blei
fiti
sshownt
obeagai
nstt
he

42
pecuni
aryorpropri
etar
yinterestofthemakerparti
cularl
yifiti
sestabl
i
shedt hat
i
fitwerethenitwouldexposet hemakertocriminalprosecuti
onorciv
illi
abil
it
ies
fordamages.
Thejust
if
icat
ionisthati
tisr easonabl
etoexpectthatnoper soncanvoluntar
il
y
betr
ayhimselfunl
essitistrue.

STATEMENTSEXPRESSI
NGOPI
NIONASTOPUBLI
CRI
GHTANDCUSTOM

Ast atementisadmissibl
eifitexpr
essesthemaker’
sopinionastotheexi st
ence
ofanycust om oranypublicri
ghtoranymat t
erofpubl
icorgenerali
nterest
particul
arl
yifthemakeroft hestat
ementwouldreasonabl
ybeexpectedt ohave
beenawar eoft heexi
stenceofsuchr i
ghtorcust
om undersect
ion33( d).Such
statementishowev eradmissibl
eonlyifi
twasmadebef or
eadi sput
ear osein
respectofthecustom orright.

STATEMENTSMADEI
NRELATI
ONTOEXI
STI
NGRELATI
ONSHI
P

Undersect ion33( e)ast atementisadmi ssi

blei
fitr
elat
est otheexist
enceofa
rel
ationshipeitherbybl oodormar r
iageoradoptionpart
icular
lyifi
tisshownthat
themakeroft hestat ementhadspeci almeansofknowingt heexist
enceofsuch
arelati
onshi p
Thest atementwi ll
beadmi ssi
bleonlyifi
tismadebef or
et hedisput
ear ose
rel
atingtot hatrel
ationship.

STATEMENTSRELATI
NGTOFAMI
LYAFFAI
RS

Theseareadmi ssibl
eundersect i
on33( f)i
fmadeinr el
ati
ontotheexist
enceof
anyrel
ati
onshi pbyblood,
marriageoradopt i
oninrespectofdeceasedpersons.
Forsuchstatement stobeadmi ssi
bletheymusthavebeenmadeei t
herbyway
ofwil
loreit
herbywayofdeedandt heymusthav ebeenmadebef oredisputein
questi
onarose.
Theymayal sohav ebeenonat ombst oneorfamil
ypor t
rai
toranyotherthi
ngon
whichsuchst atementsar
eusual l
ymade.

STATEMENTSRELATI
NGTOATRANSACTI
ONCREATI
NGORASSERTI
NGA
CUSTOM

Secti
on33( g)readt oget
herwi t
hsect i
on38(a)makesadmissibl
est
atements
rel
ati
ngtoanyt ransacti
onbywhi chacustom orari
ghtinquesti
onwascreated,
modifi
ed,assert
edordeni edorast atement,
whichisi
nconsi
stentwi
ththe
exi
stenceofsuchr ightorcustom.
Suchstatementmusthowev erhavebeenmadebywayofdeedorsomeot her
document ,
whichexpl ai
nsthet r
ansacti
on,i
nquesti
onanditmusthavebeen
madebef oret
hedi sputearose.

43
STATEMENTSMADEBYSEVERALPERSONS

Undersecti
on33( h)
Ast at
ementisadmissi
blei
fitisshownthatitexpr
esseswhatsev
eral
per
sonsin
respectoft
heirf
eeli
ngsoropinionsexpr
essedonapar t
icul
armat
teri
ndi
sput
e.

STATEMENTSMADEI
NPREVI
OUSPROCEEDI
NGS

Ar
eadmissibleundersection34.Thesectionprovi
desthattheevidencegivenby
awit
nessinpr evi
ousproceedingsisadmissi
bleinsubsequentproceedi
ngsorat
al
aterst
agei nthesamepr oceedings;
theevidencei
sadmi ssi
bleforpurposesof
pr
ovingt
hef actsthati
tstates.

Suchev
idencewi
l
lonl
ybeadmi
ssi
blei
fthef
oll
owi
ngcondi
ti
onsar
esat
isf
ied:

1)Wherethewitnessisdead,
2)Cannotbefound,isi
ncapabl
eofgiv
ingevidence,or
3)Wherehehasbeenkeptawaybyt headversepar t
yor
4)Wherethepresenceofthewit
nesscannotbepr ocur
edwi
thout
unnecessar
ydelayandexpense.

I
nrespectofsubsequentpr
oceedi
ngssuchev
idencei
sadmi
ssi
bleonl
yift
he
f
oll
owingcondit
ionsaresat
isf
ied

i
. I
ftheproceedingsar
ebet
weent
hesamepar
ti
esasbef
oreort
hei
r
r
epresent
ativ
es

i
i
. Iftheadver
separ
tyi
ntheprevi
ouspr
oceedi
ngshadt
heoppor
tuni
tyt
o
cross-
examinet
he wi t
ness.

i
i
i. Ift
hef
act
sini
ssuei
nthepr
evi
ouspl
ust
hesubsequentpr
oceedi
ngar
ethe
same.

STATEMENTSMADEUNDERSPECI
ALCI
RCUMSTANCES

Theyar
eal
sor
efer
redt
oasst
atement
sindocument
stheyar
eadmi
ssi
ble.They
i
ncl
ude:

1)Entri
esmadei nbooksofaccountst hatareregularl
ykepti nthecourse
ofbusinessbutsuchstatementsrequirecorroboration.
2)Entri
esmadei npubl
icrecordsoroffici
albooksorr egi sters;
theseare
madeasar esul
tofadutyimposedbyl awe.g.ent r
iesi ntheregist
erof
bi
rths,deat
hs,ormarri
ages.
3)Statementsmadeinmapsorchar tsandwhi char epubl ishedand

44
 generall
yoffer
edf orsalet
othepubl
ic.
4)Statementsoff actwhichar
econtai
nedinl
awsandoffi
cial
gazet
tes
(KenyaGazet t
e).
5)Statementsoflaw, whichar
econtai
nedinbooks,
publ
i
shedandoffer
ed
forsaletothepubl i
c.

Undersecti
on41suchst atementsareonl
yadmissi
blei
ftheyrelat
et othel
aws
offorei
gncountri
esandifthebooksinwhi
chtheyaremadearepublishedunder
theauthori
tyofthatfor
eigngovernmentandstat
ementsandr ecordsofcourt
rul
ingsofsuchforei
gncountr
ies.

OPI
NIONEVI
DENCE

Thegener alrul
easr egardsopi ni
onev i
denceisthataper son’sopini
onast oa
facti
snotadmi ssi
bleinEv i
denceitisar uleofexclusion.Thatr ul
erequi
resthat
anywitnesstender
ingev idenceincour tshoul
donlyst atefactsandheshouldnot
makeordr aw anyinferenceorexpr essanyopi niont osuchf act
s.Awi tness
shoul
dnotexpr essaper sonalopiniononmat t
ers,whichcal lforspeci
alski
l
land
exper
ti
seunl esshepossessesexper t
iseinthatfi
eld.

I
ft hegener
alruleislef
t,asi
tist
headmi
nist
rat
ionofj
ust
icemayr
esul
tint
o
absurdi
ti
esbecause:

1)Theremayar i
secircumstanceswhereawitnessmaynotef f
ecti
vel
ygiv
e
meaningfulevi
denceunlesshedr awsinf
erencesi
nr espectoffact
sto
which heiswi t
nessing.Thatdependson t heci
rcumstancesofeach
part
icul
arcase.

2)Therearecertai
nmat t
ersinrespectofwhicht hecourtcannotal ways
purportt
o hav e a monopolyofknowl edge i
nt hisincl
ude mattes of
Sci
ence,History
,ArtsandMedi ci
neamongot hers.I
nr espectofsuch
mat t
erst
hecour tshouldbepr eparedtoallow opini
onev i
denceint he
for
m ofopini
onofper sonswhohav eexper
ti
seinsuchcases.

3)Somet i
mesi fthecourtallowsopi ni
onevidenceitmaysav
et hecourt
s
ti
mewhi chmayot her
wisehav ebeenspentinresear
chi
ngonthematter
s
i
nr espectofwhichtheopinionisexpr
essed.

Besidethecour t
sofLaw onlyexpertsar eallowedtogiv eopi
nionev i
dencebut
onlyinthei
rareaofexpert
ise.Normallyaper sonisconsider
edanexper tthrough
careful
anddi l
i
gentstudyorthroughresearchandexper i
enceinthefiel
dinwhi ch
theexper t
iseiscl ai
med,butt her
ear ecircumstanceswher et hecour tmay
recogni
zet hepersontobeanexpertev enifhehasnothadanyst udyorresearch
i
nt hatfi
eld

45
Except
ions:

1. Exper
tOpi
nions.Sect
ion48

Anex perti
squal
if
iedtobeoneaf t
eracar ef
ulstudyofthatofwhi
chonei s
prof
essingtobeanexperti
nort hroughexperi
enceinthatmatt
er.Ther
efor
e,
ther
eneednotbeformal
trai
ning.Experi
encecanbeenough

R.vSi
l
ver
lock(
1894)2Q.
B.766

A sol i
cit
orwasper mitt
edt ogi veev i
denceorexper topi niononamat t
erof
handwr it
ingalt houghhehadnev erreceivedanyf ormalt r
aining.I twashi shobby
tost udyhandwr i
ti
ngs.Howev er,tosayt hatnof ormaltrainingi srequi r
eddoes
notmean any body can be accept ed. Ther e should be some past ,long
connect i
onwi tht hemat terathand.
InOdi ndovR1969E. A.12, t
heaccusedwaschar gedwi ththeof fenceofdr i
ving
whilstexcessi v elydrunk. Ev idencewasadduced byt hepol i
ceof fi
cerwho
testi
fiedthatwhent heappellantwast akentot heTraffi
cHeadquar ters,hecoul d
not,interalia,pr onouncehi snamepr operly
.Hecoul dnott ellt
het imebyt he
clockont hewal l
,andhecoul dnotst andononel egwi thar mshor izontall
y
spread.Ont hisev i
dence,hewasconv i
cted.
Onappeal ,thecour ttookexcept i
ont ot hatev i
dence.APol iceOf f
icercannot
testi
fyast owhet herapersoni scapabl eori ncapabletodr ivebyv irt
ueofdr i
nk.
Allthatwasr equi r
edwashi sasser ti
onandt hecour tt odr aw inf erence.The
otheralternati
v eist ohaveadoct or.

I
nSt
ephenvR1973E.
A.

Theaccused wasappr ehended wi t

h whatappear ed to bebhang. Hewas
chargedwithbeinginpossessi onoft hesame.Theev i
dencef r
om thePol
ice
Offi
cerwast hatheknewbhangandt hattheexhibi
tincour twasbhang.Hewas
convict
ed.TheHi ghCourtquashedt heconv i
cti
on.I thel
dt hatt
heLowerCourt
baseditsjudgmentonev i
denceofanon- exper
t.Thepr operprocedur
ewould
havebeentosubmi tthatexhi
bitforanaly
sisbyagov ernmentanalyst
.

Howdoesanexper
tgi
vehi
sopi
nion?

Unlesshisexpert
isei
ssomani festorunquest
ionabl
e,thepersonseeki
ngto
adducehisopini
onmustfir
stqual i
fyhi
mselfasanexpert.Questi
onsareputt
o
hi
m.Onceheshowshi squali
ficati
ons,hei
saskedt oexpresshi
sopini
on.Thi
s
normall
ydependsonwhether:

Hehimselfobser
vedt
hef
act
sont
hebasi
sofwhi
chhei
sbei
ngaskedf
ort
he
opi
nion.

46
Whethersomebodyelsehastesti
fi
edtot hefact
s.Ifhehasdoneso,hewoul
dbe
askeddir
ectquesti
onstowhi chdir
ectanswerar er equi
red.Wher
ehehasnot
obser
vedthefact
shei saskedhypothet
icalquest
ions.

Needanexper
tgivereasons?Ongr
oundsofpr
udenceheshoul
d.Thi
sisnota
l
egalr
equi
rement
.( RvSali
m)

Sincetwoexper
tswhohav estudiedthesamet hingmaygi
veconf
li
cti
ngvi
ews,
therebei
ngnolegalr
equi
rementr egardi
ngreasons,nor
mal
l
ythebestwayi
sto
cross-
exami
nethem wi
thav i
ewt ogetti
ngreasons.

Thewei
ghtofExper
tEv
idence:

Theevi
denceofanexper tisonl
yanopinionandthecour
thastomakeitsown
fi
ndi
ngont hemat t
erbyr ej
ecti
ngoragreeingwi
thit
.Ithastoindi
cat
ethati
t
madeit
sowni ndependentfi
nding.I
nKit
smi l
evs.UgandaCri
m App.No.7of
1976C.A.said:

“Anexpertopinionisopi nionevidenceanditcanr ar
elyifevertakethepl aceof
substanti
veevidence.Thatopi nionisonlyapieceofev idenceandi tisforthe
courttodecidet hei ssueonewayort heotheruponsuchassi st
anceast he
expertmayoffer .I
not herwor dst hecourti
snott osurr
enderitsopiniontothat
ofexpertscal
ledbef oreit,butwithsuchhelpast heycanaf f
orditmustf ormits
ownopi ni
onoft hesubjectathand. ”

Wher
eef
fi
cientcommuni
cat
ionr
equi
rest
heexpr
essi
onofanopi
nion.

1.Thi
shappenswher
ethewi
tnesscannotsepar
atehi
sinf
erencef
rom t
he
per
cei
vedfact
s.

Exampl
es:

 Ifawi t
nessi sexpr essingwhathi sment alcondit
ionisorst at
eof
bodi
lyfeelinge.g.Iwasf eelingdizzy;si
cketc.
 Matter
sofi dentif
icati
onofper sonsort hi
ngse. g.i
nt hef
tcasesi fa
wit
nesssai dthatwhat everi sexhibi
tedincourtishisproper
tythatis
anopinion.I twouldbedi f
fi
culttopr ov
ethatitwashisproper
tyunless
hegivest hatopinionandi spermittedtoadducef ur
therevi
dencelike,
i
thasadent ,amar ket c.
 Speedopi nions,age,color,weightetc.

2.Whereopi
nionsofcer
tai
nper
sonsaresolikel
ytobecor
rectt
hati
twoul
d
besavi
ngti
meandmoneyt oacceptt
hoseopini
ons:
Sect
ions50–53.

47
EVI
DENCEOFCHARACTER

Undersect i
on58cap80‘ charact
er’incl
udesbot hdisposi
ti
onandr eputation.
Evidenceofgener aldi
spositi
onorgener alreputati
onisadmi ssi
blesubj ectto
exceptionssetoutinsect
ion57.‘ Disposi
ti
on’rel
atestotherealit
yofaper son-
histendencytoactinaparticul
armanner .Thisbeingso,evi
denceofdi spositi
on
canonl ybeadducedbyonecl osetotheperson,whoknowshi m wel l
.

‘
Reputat
ion’r
eferstoesteem orl
ackofiti
nwhichpeoplethatstayinthesame
l
ocali
tyorneighbourhoodorworkwithi
nhiminsocialoroffi
cialci
rcl
esholda
per
son.

Admi
ssi
bil
i
tyofev
idenceofchar
act
eri
nci
vi
lcases.

Thegeneralrul
ei sseti nsect i
on55.I tisstat
edthatev i
denceofchar acteris
general
lyi
nadmissibleinci
v i
lcases.
Justi
fi
cati
onli
esint hefactthatinci
vilcasesthecourti
sgener all
ynoti
nterested
i
nt hecharact
erofanypar tyitsmainlyinter
estedindeterminingthecl
aim put
befor
eitbuttherear einstanceswhenev i
denceofcharactermaybeadmi tt
ed.
Theseinst
ancesmayi ncl
udet hefol
l
owi ng:

1.Wher
ethecharacterofthepar
tyi
saf acti
nissueorwher
ei tar
ises
f
rom afactinissue.Charact
erinissueincasesofdef amation
wher
edefenceofjust
if
icati
oni
srai
sed.

2.Wheretheev i
denceofchar
acterwould af
fectthequant
um of
damages.Damagessoughti
nt hedeathori nj
urytoacrimi
nal
.
Compensat
ioninadul
ter
ymat
terincust
omarylaw.

3.Char
acteri
sal
soadmi
ssi
blei
fbei
ngusedt
oshapet
hecr
edi
bil
i
tyof
awit
ness.

4.Befor
e1970char act
erwouldbeadmissi
blei
nanact
ionf
ordamage
forabr eachofapr omisetomarry
.Manwouldbecommi ttedto
adduceev i
denceofgir
lsbadchar
actert
hati
swhyhehasbreached
promisetomar r
y.

Cr
imi
nalcases.

Section56Evi
denceofgoodchar act
erisadmissi
ble.Itisusef
ulonlyi
ndoubtful
cases. Iftheprosecut
ionevidencewer eclear
,t herewould beno need of
adducingi
t.
Section57(1) Thefactthataccusedhascommi ttedorbeenconv i
ctedofor
chargedwit
hanyof f
enceotherthant hatwhi
chhei sthencharged,orisofbad

48
char
act
er,
isi
nadmi
ssi
ble.

Except
ions

a.Wheret
hechar
act
eri
sini
ssueorr
elev
antt
othei
ssue.MugovR(
1960)
E.
A.124

b.Proofofcommissi
onorconv i
cti
onofanotherof
fenceadmissi
bleunder
secti
on14or15.Evidenceofnon-cr
imi
nalorimmoralact
snotincl
uded.
R.vCockar(
1960)

c.Whereaccusedhasbr oughthi
scharact
erint
oi ssue.Theprosecut
ionis
al
l
owedt oexami nehim onhispastconductedwi t
hav iew t
oshowi ng
whathischaract
erreall
yis-thattheaccusedi ssuchaper sonwhose
ev
idenceonoathshouldnotberel
i
edon.

The pur pose ofthe section howev eris notto prev

entt he accused from
developingorestablishi
nghisdef ence. Hence,prot
estat
ionsofi nnocenceor
repudiati
onsofgui l
tdonotmeanhei sofgoodcharact
er.Ther easonf orthat
protestati
onisimportant-i
foneisasser ti
ngthatasanhonestmanhei sunli
kely
tocommi ttheoffence,itamountst oev i
denceofgoodchar act
erandmaybe
exami ned.

I
nRvRowt
on(
1861-
1873)Al
lER549

Theaccusedwaschar gedwi
thindecentassault
,dur
ingthetr
ial
hegav eev
idence
totheeff
ectthathewasnott hekindofper sonthatcouldi
ndecentl
yassaulta
womanbecausehewasaper sonofgoodchar actersandaper soningood
rel
ati
onswit
hladies.

Theprosecuti
oncall
edawitnesstorebutthatev
idence.Thatwi t
nessstat
edthat
hedidnotact ual
l
yknow whatpeopl eintheneighbourhoodt houghtaboutthe
accusedpersonbutfrom hi
sownexper i
enceandf rom theassessmentofhi s
brot
hersthe accused was capabl
e oft he gr
ossesti ndecencyand flagr
ant
i
mmor ali
ty.

In hi
sjudgmentCockbur
n C.J.heldthatthatevi
denceofr ebut
talwasnot
admissi
blebecausei
tmerel
yexpressedthewit
nessesopi
nionont heaccused
charact
er.

HassanvR.1960E.
A.171

Heretheaccusedpersonwasconductingowndefence,whi
l
ecrossexamininga
poli
cemanwhohadgi v
enev i
dencefortheprosecut
ionheaskedwhet herhe
knewthattheaccusedhadrecent
lycomeoutofjai
lonconvi
cti
onforpossessi
ng
ofdatewine.Thepoli
cemanansweredintheaf
fi
rmativ
e.

49
Onthebasi softhattheprosecutionsoughttoexami netheaccusedper sonasto
fur
therev i
denceofthatpr eviousconvicti
onandhi sbadchar acter;andhewas
convict
ed.Theaccusedper sonappeal edtotheconv i
cti
onandt heappell
ate
courtheldthatthetr
ialcourthader r
edi nadmitt
ingtheev i
denceoft heaccused
badchar act
erbecauset heaccused’squest i
onatthetimeatwhi chi twasasked
couldnotjusti
fytheaccusedl osi
nghisshieldatthatstageandsoi tdidnotbr
ing
theaccusedper soncharacterint
oissue.Toputchar acteri
ntoissuey ouhaveto
showhowgoody ouare,nothowbad.

Shouldtheev i
denceofchar act
ersoughtt o beadduced byprosecut
ion be
rel
evantt othe charge? Can t
he prosecut
ion cr
oss-exami
ne on character
i
rrel
evanttothechargee.g.anal
legedthi
efwhoisallegedtohav
er apedaf ew
yearsback?

Lor
dSi
mmondsi
nSt
ir
landvDPPsai
d:

“Anaccusedpersonwhoput shi
schar act
erinissuemustberegardedasput t
ing
thewholeofhi spastrecordinissue. Hecannotasserthisgoodconducti n
cert
ainrespect
swithoutexposi
nghimselft oi
nquiryast
other estofhisrecord
orconductsofarasthi
stendstodisprovetheclai
m ofhi
sgoodchar act
er.
”

I
nRvWi
nfi
eld193914Al
lE.
R.

Theaccusedwaschargedwithindecentassaul
tuponawoman. Hecal leda
womanwi t
nesstospeakofhisgoodbehaviourwit
hladies.Previ
ousl
y,hewas
conv
ict
edoflar
cenyandthecour
tall
owedhimt obecross-exami
nedonthat.

Held: Thereisnosucht hi
ngknownt oourprocedureasputti
ngaccused’s
charact
erint
oissueinhal
fleavi
ngtheotherhal
f.Cross-exami
nati
ongoest o
dismantl
ecredi
bil
i
tyeveni
fitdoesnotgotoprovet
hecharge.Isevidencet
hat
somebodyhasbeenchargedwithanof
fenceandnot
hingmoreadmissibl
e?

Maxwel
lvD.
P.P

Dr.Maxwellwaschar gedwi thmanslaughterbyprocur

ingabor t
ion.Heputhi s
charact
eri
ni ssuebysayingt hathehadledacl eanmorallif
e.Thepr osecut
ion
soughttor ebutasserti
on byl eadi
ng evidencethathehad pr evi
ouslybeen
chargedwit
ht hesameof fencebutacquit
ted.Thiswasi nadmissibl
esincesuch
chargehadnor el
evancetocredibi
li
ty.

Undersect
ion57(1)(
c)Wherethenatureorconductofthedefencei
ssuchasto
i
nvolv
eimputati
onsonthecharacterofthecomplainantorofawi t
nessf
orthe
pr
osecuti
onthenhemaybecross-examinedonhisownchar act
er.

50
Ther ationaleis:Thecour tisentit
ledt oknowt hecharacteroftheper sonwho
all
egest hatothersareunr eli
able.I nSt ir
landvD. P.
Pi twasobser v
edt hatan
accusedi snott ober egardedasdi sprovinghi msel
foft hepr ot
ectionoft he
exclusionaryr uleasr egardsev i
denceofbad char actermer el
ybecauset he
properconductofhi sdefencenecessi tatesthemaki ngofinjur
iousref
lect i
onson
thepr osecutionorhi switnesses.I fthei mputationmadeagai nstthechar acter
ofthepr osecut ororwit
nessi sanint egralpartofhisdefencehecanputt hatup:

Theforegoi
ngviewwasadopt edinRiversvs.R(1953)20EACA147.Hel d:“An
accusedisnott
obeconsideredtohav eputhischar
acteri
nissuei
fall
hedoesis
att
acktheconductoftheprosecutororwitnessint
heconductofthatpar
ti
cul
ar
casebutnotaspersons.

InOmondivR 1967EACA,t heaccusedputi ttothepoli

cedur i
ngcr oss-
examinati
ont hathewasdel i
beratelycommi tt
ingperj
uryandtell
ingli
es. The
magistr
ateal l
owedcross-examinati
ononpr evi
ousconvi
cti
onongr oundsofthe
accusati
on.Asar esultitwasdiscov er
edt hathehadhad14conv i
cti
onsand14
yearsinjail
.Heappeal edont hegr oundt hatthepr
osecut
ionwasper mit
tedto
giveprej
udi ci
alevi
dencewi thoutj ust
if
icati
on. Appealwasal l
owed. Itwas
emphasizedt hatt
ochallengewi t
nessev idenceisnottodi
scredi
tthecharact
er
ofthatwitness.

I
nAbdul l
aKat wevUganda1964E. A.477counself ortheaccusedtol
dthe
prosecuti
onthattheyhadactuall
yfabr
icat
edevidence.Thiswasheldtohave
gonef urt
herthanjustchal
l
engingtheprosecut
ionsev i
dencehencechar
act
er
wasbr oughti
ntoi
ssue.

Undersection157( d)wheretheaccusedper songi

v esevidenceagai nstany
otherperson charged wit
hthesameof fence,theco-accused isent it
led to
adduceev i
denceoftheaccused’sbadcharacter.Therati
onal
ei sthati
faper son
givesevi
denceagainsttheco-
accusedhei sinthesameposi t
ionasawi tnessf or
theprosecuti
oninsof arastheco-accusedi sconcer
nedhencet heco-accused
i
sent i
tl
edtodiscredi
thim.

Evi
denceagainstco-accusedmeansev i
dencewhi chsupport
st heprosecuti
on’s
caseagainstt
heco- accusedinamat eri
alrespectorwhichunderminest he
defenceoftheco-accused.Thereforeifevi
dencemer el
ycontradict
st hatofthe
co-accusedwit
hadv ancingtheprosecuti
on’scase,i
tcannotputchar acteri
nto
i
ssue.

REVI
SIONEXERCI
SES

1.Anasser t
ionothert
hanonemadebyapersonwhil
egiv
ingoralevi
dence
i
nt heproceedi
ngsisinadmi
ssi
bleasev
idenceofanyf
actoropini
on
assert
ed.Discuss.

51
2.Discusstheexclusi
onaryr
ulepr
eventi
ngtheadmissi
bil
i
tyofevi
dence
rel
atingt
ot hebadcharact
eroftheaccusedper
sonincri
minal
cases.

3.I
sitnecessar
ythatanexper
tgiv
ereasonsf
orhi
sopi
nion?Di
scusswi
th
r
elev
antill
ust
rat
ionsanddeci
dedcases.

4.Di
scusst
heexcept
ionst
othehear
sayr
ule

52
 CHAPTER5

5.DOCUMENTARYEVI
DENCE

DOCUMENTS

A documentincludesanypubl
icati
onandanymat t
erexpressedordescri
bed
uponanysubstancebymeansofl et
ter
s,f
igur
esormarksorbymorethanoneof
thosemeanswhi chisint
endedtobeusedormaybeusedf ort
hepurposeof
recor
dingt
hatmat ter
.

Document
smaybepubl
i
corpr
ivat
e.Sect
ion79def
inespubl
i
cdocument
sas:
-

a) Documentsformingtheactsorrecor
dsoftheactsof
 ASov erei
gn
 Offi
ci
albodies,tr
ibunal
s
 Publi
coffici
als-ofKenyaoranyothercount
ry.

b) Publ
i
cr ecor
dskeptinKeny
aofpr
ivat
edocument
se.
g.bi
rt
hcer
ti
fi
cat
es,
marr
iagecert
if
icat
es.

Alldocumentsotherthanpubl
i
cdocumentsar eprivate.Thelaw hasmoreor
l
essaccor dedpubli
cdocumentsaspecialplace( status)
. Thepersonswho
maket hesedocumentsarenevercal
l
edaswi tnessespr ovi
dedthedocument
s
areproperl
ydrawn.Thedocumentsareadmissibl
easl ongasthecont
enti
sof
publi
cinter
est
.

Document
aryev
idencemaybepr
ovedi
ncour
tbypr
imar
yorsecondar
yev
idence.

(
i) Pr
imar
yEv
idence

This means the documenti t

selfis produced fori nspecti
on (secti
on 65(1)
Evi
denceAct ).Thegener alrulei
sthatdocument smustbepr ovedinacour tof
l
aw bypr i
mar yevidence.Thi sgener
alpr i
ncipl
ei sknownast hebestev i
dence
rul
e.Thetaskoft hel i
ti
ganti
st omaket hecourtconv ersantwit
ht hedocuments,
whichhewi shestor el
yon.Hemustt hereforeproducet heori
ginaldocumentas
thepri
maryev idenceher eli
eson.Seeot herformsofpr i
maryev i
denceunder
secti
on65.

Thereisanexcept
iontotherule: Thisiswherethedocumentsar enotthe
ori
ginalbutmay,i
n cer
tai
n ci
rcumstances be admi
tt
ed in ev
idence. Such
documentsar
eknownassecondaryEvidence.

(
ii
) Secondar
yEv
idence.

53
Thi
sincl
udesdocumentst
hathavebeencheckedagai
nstt
heor
igi
nalanddul
y
cer
ti
fi
edas‘at
ruecopyoft
heori
ginal
’
.

Secondaryev i
dencemaybegi venoftheexi st
ence,conditionorcont entsofa
document .Suchev idencecannotbegi venunl essthepar typr oposi
ngt ogi ve
secondaryevidencehasgi venanot i
cetopr oducet hedocument .Thisnot iceis
requi
redtobegi venundersect i
on69.Inci vilpr
oceedings, apartywouldi ssuea
noti
ceunderf orm 12ofappendi xB:Or der12r8Ci v
ilProcedur eRulesappl i
es.
Theef f
ectofthisnoti
cei sthat
,atthetr
ial,ifthepersonpr eviouslyser
vedwi t
ha
noti
cet oproducefail
stopr oducetheoriginal,t
hepar tyseekingt heori
ginalcan
rel
yont hesecondaryevidenceofthedocument .

Wheretheor i
ginaldocumenthasbeenl ostordest
royedandawit
nesscannot
ther
efor
epr oducei torwheret
heori
ginaldocumentisofanat
ureasnottobe
easi
lymov able,thensecondar
yevi
denceoft hecontent
softhedocumentis
admissi
ble(Secti
on68( 1)(
a)(
c)(
d)2( a)).

Wheretheori
ginalisapubl i
cdocumentwi thi
nthemeani ngofSection79,or
wher
et hedocumentt hatisacer t
if
iedcopyoftheorigi
nali sper
mittedt
obe
gi
veninevi
dence,onl
yt hecer
tif
iedcopyofthedocumentisper mi
tt
ed.Noother
ki
ndofsecondaryevi
denceispermitt
ed(Secti
on68(1)(e)(f)2c)

Wher et he origi
naldocument consi sts of numer ous accounts or other
document swhi chcannotbeconv enientlyexaminedincour t
,andthefacttobe
provedisthegener alresultofthewhol ecoll
ecti
onofaccount s,t
henawi tness
maygi veevidenceast ot hegeneralresultoftheaccountsondocument s.The
witnessmusthav eexaminedt heaccount sordocument sandmustbeaper son
whoi sskil
l
edi nsuchexami nati
on-Section68(1)(g)2( d).

Anot
herexcept
ionregar
dingsecondar
yev
idencei
sthemodeofpr
oofofent
ri
es
i
nbanker
’sbooks(Secti
on176)

Abankof fi
cial
maygi veevidenceont hebanker
’sbookusi
ngsecondar yevidence
ofthedocument s.Thisthoughi ssubjectt
ot hecondi
ti
ont hatthepartymust
provethatthebooksshownorr el
iedonwer einthecustodyandcont r
oloft he
bank;theent r
iesweremadei ntheusualmanner ;thebooksar et heor i
ginal
booksoft hebank;andt heor igi
nalbookentrywascompar edwi t
hthecopyand
i
scor r
ect(Section177).Anof fi
cerofthebankmustcomet ocourttoprovethat
heinfactdidt heexaminationorbywayofaf f
idavi
t.Hemustal sobeonedul y
author
izedtomakesuchaf fidavi
t.

EXTRI
NSI
CEVI
DENCEAFFECTI
NGCONTENTSOFADOCUMENT.

Onceat
ransact
ionhasbeenembodiedinadocumentmayev
idencebegi
venof
t
ermsot
herthanthosecont
ainedi
nit?Towhatext
entmayevi
dencebegi
venof

54
t
hemeani
ngoft
het
ermsofadocument
?

Asageneralr
ule,
ext
ri
nsi
cevi
dencei
snotadmissi
blei
nev
idencewhent het
erms
ofthecontr
actorgrantordi
sposi
ti
onofpropert
yhavebeenr educedintoa
document
(Sect
ion97)
.

Ther
ear
etwoexcept
ionsundersect
ion97

a) Wi
l
lsadmi
tt
edt
opr
obat
einKeny
amaybepr
ovedbyt
hepr
obat
e.

b) Appoi
ntmentofpubl
icof
fi
cer
s-thewri
ti
ngbywhi
chhei
sappoi
ntedneed
notbeprov
edifhehasact
edassuch.

Section98iscomplementarytosect ion97. Itre-emphasizestheposit

ionof
secti
on97.NoEv i
denceofanyor alagreementorst atementshallbeadmit
ted
asbet weentheparti
esto any( such)i nst
rumentort hei
rr epr
esent
ati
vesin
i
nterestfort
hepur
poseofcont radicti
ng,var
ying,addingtoorsubt r
act
ingfr
om
i
tsterms.However
,thereareexceptions:

1.Anyf
actmaybepr
ovedwhi
chwoul
dinv
ali
dat
eanydocument

PatelvPat el1941KLR41-Thepl ai
nti
f fsuedonani nstr
umentwhichon
thefaceofi tpurportedtobeabond,butt hedefendantsai ditwasamoney -
l
endingagr eementy etthedef endantwasnotal icensedmoneyl enderthus
thecontractwasnul landvoid.Thepl ai
nti
ffsaidthedef endantwasestopped
for
m deny i
ngt helegali
tyofthedocument .
Held:Thedef endantwasatl i
ber
tytoadduceev idencetoshow thetrue
natur
eoft hedocumentt oinval
idatei
t.

2.Wher
et her
eisinexi
stenceaseparat
eoralagr
eementonwhi
chcont
racti
s
si
l
entbutwhichi
snoti
nconsi
stentwit
hter
msofcontr
act
.

I
nJohansenvJet haLtd1959E. A.563Therewasacont r
actofguarantee
i
nwhi chaspacefort hesignatur
eoft he4thguarantorhadbeenl ef
tblank,
andwassi l
entont hequest i
onwhet hert
hesi gnat
uresofal l4guarantors
wouldbeacondi t
ionf ortheguar ant
eecomi ngintoforce,coupl
edwi tha
stat
ementofthe3guar ant
orsthatthei
r3signatur
eswereenough.

Thest at
ementwast akentobeacol l
ateralterm ofthecont
ractnota
modificat
ionofthesame.Thir
dwasadmissible.
3.Separateoralagr
eementconst
it
uti
ngacondi
t i
onpr ecedent
.

4.Theexist
enceofanydi
sti
nctsubsequentor
alagr
eementt
oresci
ndormodi
fy
anysuchcontr
act
.

55
5.Toshowausageorcust om whichisnotexpr
esslyputi
nacont r
act-usual
l
y
annexedtoacont r
act-prov
idedsuchcustom orusagedoesnotconf
li
ctwit
h
orisrepugnantt
othetermsofcontract
.

6.To show how thel

anguageofdocumenti
srel
ated t
othef
act
soft
hat
par
ticul
arcase.

EXTRI
NSI
CEVI
DENCEI
NAI
DOFI
NTERPRETATI
ON.

Theobjectofint
erpretat
ionisnei
thert
oascer
tai
nthemeani
ngofwor
dsnort
he
i
ntent
ionsofthewr i
terapartf
rom t
hewordshehasused.

Extr
insi
cev i
denceisgenerall
yi nadmissi
bletoascertai
nt hemeaningofwor ds
usedbyt hewrit
er.Whent hel anguageusedi nadocumenti sonthefaceofi t
ambiguousordefect
ive,ev
idencemaynotbegi venofactswhi chwouldshowit’s
meaningorsupplyitsdefectssect i
on99 ( Patentambiguity)
.Whenl anguage
usedi nadocumenti splain,andwheni tappliesaccuratel
ytoexisti
ngfacts,
evi
dencemaynotbegi v
ent oshowt hatitwasnotmeantt oapplyt
osuchf acts-
secti
on100.

Except
ions

a)Evi
dencetoexplai
nalatentambiguitySecti
on101
b)Ofappli
cati
ontooneofsev er
alsubjects.Sect
ion102
c)Ofappli
cati
ontooneofsev er
alsetsoff act
sSecti
on103
d)Toexplai
nspecialwords Secti
on104
e)Ofvar
iati
ongiv
enbyt hir
dparti
es.Section105

REVI
SIONQUESTI
ONS

1.Adocumentmustal way sbeprovedbywayofpr i

maryevidencebecauseit
proceedsont hebasisthatonlyt
heorigi
nalofadocumentist hebest
proofofthatdocument.Therehowev eri
nstanceswhentheor i
ginalmay
notbeav ai
lableandsoi tmayoccasi
oninjusti
ceorhar
dshiptoi nsi
ston
theproducti
onoft heorigi
nal
.
Discusstheinstanceswhent hecour
tmayacceptsecondar yevidenceofa
document .

2.Whati
stheuseofext
ri
nsi
cev
idenceandi
sitanydi
ff
erentf
rom par
ole

56
 ev
idence.

3.Whati
sadocument
?

CHAPTER6

6.ESTOPPEL(
SS.
120–123)

DEFI
NITI
ON

ESTOPPELi s“primari
lyar uleofev i
dencewher ebyapar t
ytol it
igat
ioni s,in
certain circumstances,prev ent
ed from denying somet hi
ng whi ch he has
previouslyassert
edt obetrue.”Nurdi
nbandalivLombar kTangany ikalt
d.(1963)
E.A.304( perNewbol dJ.A.
)
Itisusualt odivi
deest oppelintothr
eecategori
es,estoppelbyj udgment( orby
record),estoppelbydeedandest oppelbyconduct(of
tencal l
edestoppel npai
i s)
;
disti
nctionhasal sot obedr awnbetweencommonl aw estoppelandequi table
estoppel .

I
ll
ust
rat
ion

Ai ntentional
l
yandfal
selyl
eadsBtobel
ievethatcer
tai
nlandbelongstoA,and
therebyi nducesB t
obuyandpayf orit. Thelandafterwar
dsbecomest he
propert yofA,andAseekst
osetasi
dethesaleonthegroundthatatt
heti
meof
thesal e,hehadnoti
tl
e.Hemustnotbeall
owedtoprovehiswantofti
tl
e.

Themaj orpr
inci
plewhi
chcanbededucedf r
om sect
ion 120enunci
atest
hat
Estoppeli
sbasedonthepri
nci
plethatitwouldbemostinequi
tabl
eandunj
ust
thatifone person,by a r
epresent
ation,orby conductamounti
ng toa

57
repr
esentat
ion,
hasinducedanothertoactashewouldnotot
herwisehavedone,
thepersonwhomadet her epr
esentat
ionshoul
dbeall
owedtodenyorr epudi
ate
theeff
ectofhisfor
merst at
ementtothelossandi
njur
yofthepersonwhoact ed
onit.

SirEdwardCokehaddef
inedestoppeli
nthesewords.Anest
oppelexi
sts“where
aman’ sownactoracceptancestoppethorcloset
huphismout htoall
egeor
pleadthetrut
h.”Insi
mplerlanguage,apersoncannotbeall
owedt osayone
thingatati
meandthecontr
aryatanother
.Hecannotblowbothhotandcold.

Thissecti
oni sfoundedupont hedoctrinel ai
ddowni nPickardvSearsnamel y;
thatwhereaper son“byhi swor dsorconductwi l
lful
lycausesanothertobeli
eve
theexist
enceofacer tai
nst at
eoft hi
ngs, andinduceshi mtoactont hatbel
ief
,so
ast o al
terhisownpr evi
ousposi t
ion,t hef ormeri sexcludedfrom av er
ri
ng
againstt
hel att
eradifferentstateofthingsasexi st
ingatthesamet ime.”This
doctri
neprecludesaper sonfrom denyingt hetrut
hofsomest atementprev
iousl
y
madebyhi m.( Nocauseofact i
onarisesuponest oppeli
tself
).

I
nordertohol
dthatacasecomeswithi
nthescopeoft
hissect
ionacour
tmust
fi
nd:
1.Thathebel
iev
edathingt
obetrue

2.Thati
nconsequenceoft
hatbel
i
ef,
heact
edi
napar
ti
cul
armanner
.

3.Thatbeli
ef,andhissoactingwerebroughtaboutbysomerepr
esent
ati
onby
B,eit
herbyadecl arat
ion,actoromissionwhichrepr
esent
ati
onwasmade
i
ntenti
onal
lytoproducethatresul
t.

I
ftheabov et hr
eepointsar eest
ablished,Bisprohibi
tedbyl awf r
om deny ingt he
tr
uthofhi srepresent
ationinapr oceedingbyoragai nstAorA’ sr epresentative.
I
tmaybenot edthatitisnotnecessar ytoproveanyf raudulenti
nt enti
ononB’ s
part
.Hewi llbenonethelessestoppedi fhehimselfwasact ingunderami stake
ormi sapprehension. Thesectiondoesnotappl ywher ethest atementr eli
ed
uponi smadet oaper sonwhoknowst hetruefactsandi snotmi sledbyt he
untr
uest at
ement .Therecanbenoest oppelifbot
ht heparti
esknowt ruefact s.

InMehtavHar i
bhaiPatelt
hesupremecour tofIndiaanalyzedthescopeof
sect
ion120oftheAct,andl
aiddownt hatthef
oll
owingeightcondit
ionswhich
mustbesati
sfi
edt obri
ngacasewi thinthescopeofest oppelasdefinedin
sect
ion120:-

(
i) Theremusthavebeenar epresentat
ionbyaper son(
orhi
sauthor
ized
agents)t
oanot
herperson;suchar epresent
ati
onmaybeinanyfor
m; a
decl
arati
on,
oranactoranomi ssion.

(
ii
) Suchar
epr
esent
ati
onmusthav
ebeenoft
heexi
stenceofaf
actand

58
 notoff
utur
epr
omi
sesori
ntent
ion

(
ii
i) Ther
epr
esent
ati
onmusthav
ebeenmeantt
ober
eli
edupon.

(
iv) Ther
emusthav
ebeenbel
i
efont
hepar
toft
heot
heri
nit
str
uth.

(
v) Theremusthav ebeensomeact i
onont hefai
thofthedecl
arati
on,act
oromission.I notherwords,suchdeclar
ati
on,actoromissionmust
haveactuall
ycausedt heotherpersontoactont hefai
thofitandt o
al
terhi
spositiontohisprej
udiceordet
ri
ment .

(
vi) Themi sr
epresent
ati
onorconductoromissi
onmusthavebeent
he
proxi
matecauseofleadi
ngt
heotherpar
tyt
oactt
ohi
sprej
udi
ce.

(
vii
) Thepersonclai
mingthebenefi
tofanestoppelmustshowthathewas
notawareofthetruestat
eofthi
ngs.Therecanbenoestoppelifsuch
apersonwasawar eofthet
ruestat
eofaf f
air
sorifhehadmeansof
suchknowledge.

(
vii
i
) Onl
ythepersont
owhom ther
epresent
ati
onwasmadeorf
orwhom i
t
wasdesi
gnedcanav
ail
himsel
fofthedoct
ri
ne.

ELEMENTARYRULESI
NTHEOPERATI
ONOFESTOPPEL

(
i) I
tmustbepl
eaded:

Anypartywi shi
ngtorelyonestoppelmustrai
seitinhispl
eadingsandstatethe
rel
evantfactsuponwhichhehopest orel
yatthet
rialt
omakeoutt hepl
ea.Inthe
caseofBal wantSinghvKipkoechAr apSarem,i
twashel dthatfactsgi
vi
ngrise
tothepleasofest oppelweremat er
ialf
actandhadt obepl eaded.Suchfacts
wouldnormal l
ybepleadedintherepl
yandnottheplai
nt.

(
ii
) Est
oppelshal
lnotoper
ateagai
nstst
atut
eort
heexer
ciseofst
atut
ory
di
scret
ion.

I
nt hecaseofI ncomeTaxCommi ssi
onervA. K.,anincomet axcommi ssi
oner
agreedtoacceptl atenoticeofobjectiont oreducetheincomeassessedt oan
agreedsum andt oi ssueamendednot icesofassessment .Thecommi ssi
oner
,
howev er
,repudiat
edt heagr eementandf il
edanact i
onf orrecoveryofunpaid
i
ncomet ax,addit
ionaltaxandpenal t
iesbasedont heor i
ginalassessment.In
denyingthedefencesubmi ssiont
hecour tsai
d:

“Iunderstandthelaw tobeclearthatnoestoppelwhatev
eritsnatur
e,can
operat
et oannulst
atut
orypr
ovi
sionsandast
atutor
ypersoncannotbeest
opped

59
from per f
ormanceofhi sst
atutorydutyorfrom deny
ingthatheenteredint
oan
agreementwhi chi swasult
raviresforhimtomake.Ast atut
orypersoncanonly
perform,act s,whi chheisempower edtoper f
orm.Estoppelcannotnegatethe
oper at
ionofast at
uteandi
tispublicdutytoobeythelaw.Thequest i
onbefore
thecour twast herefor
ewhetherestoppelcl
aimedinhiscasewilldoviol
enceto
statutoryprovision.”

From t
hefact
softhecasethecour
thel
dt hatthecommissi
onerwasestoppedin
thathewasnotbeingaskedtodoanyt
hingt hatwasi
nv i
olat
ionofhi
sstatut
ory
powers.

(
ii
i) Therecanbenoest oppelonapoi ntoflaw. Al
thoughadmissi
ons
general
ly may actas estoppelas provi
ded undersecti
on 24 an
admissiononapoi ntoflaw isnotanadmi ssi
onofat hi
ngsoast o
maket headmissi
onamat terofest
oppel.

Condi
ti
onsnecessar
yfort
heest
abl
i
shmentofbot
hissueandcauseofact
ion
est
oppel
s.

Ther
emustbeaf i
naljudgment.Saveformatr
imonialcauses,adecisi
onofan
i
nfer
iorcour
twil
loperateasanestoppeli
ntheHighCourtbutthedecisionmust
beonef r
om whichtherecoul
dhav ebeenanappeal.Themer efactthatt
here
wasnoappealhoweverdoesnotpreventj
udgmentfr
om beingfinal
.

Thefinalj
udgmentmustbebet
weent
hesamepar
ti
esort
hei
rpr
ivi
es.I
nthe
caseofTownsendvShop.

1.Par
ti
esort
hei
rpr
ivi
esmustbel
i
tigat
ingi
nthesamei
ssues.

2.Par
ti
esort
hei
rpr
ivi
esmustbel
i
tigat
ingi
nthesamecapaci
ty.

3.Part
yallegi
ngt heexistenceofanestoppelbyrecor
dmustpl eadthe
for
merjudgmentashel dinVoogtvWinch.Ifhef
ail
stodoso,i
tismerel
y
anit
em ofevidencei
nhisf av
or,
whichmustbeconsi
deredbyt
hecourt
.

Speci
ali
zedquest
ionsofEst
oppel
byRecor
dinMat
ri
moni
alcauses

Althoughest oppelbindspar t
iest omat r
imonialcauses,i tdoesnotbi ndt he
courtsbecausei nsuchcases, thecour thasani nquisitori
aldutytoensur et
hatit
doesi nqui reasf araspossiblei ntot hef actsallegedbyt her espondent.The
statementt hatestoppelbindspar ti
est omat r
imoni alcausesonl ymeanst hat
onceani ssueofamat r
imonialof fencehasbeenl i
tigatedbet weenthepar ti
es
anddeci dedbyacompet entcour t,neitherpartycancl aim asofr i
ghttore-open
theissueandl i
ti
gat
eitoveragai niftheot herpar tyobj ect
sbutt hedivorcecourt,
forinstance, hastheri
ghtandindeedadut yi napr opercase, tore-opentheissue
ort oallowei therpart
ytore-opent heissueordi sputeanyobj ecti
ons.Estoppel

60
t
her
efor
edoesnotappl
y,atl
eastgener
all
ytomat
ri
moni
alcauses.

Speci
ali
zedquest
ionsofest
oppelbyr
ecor
dincr
imi
nalcases.

I
ncr i
mi nalcases,theequi val
enttoapl eaofcauseofact i
onest oppeli
sapleaof
autrefoisacqui toraut r
ef oi
sconvi ct
.TheConst it
uti
onpr ovidesthatnoperson
whoshowst hathehasbeent ri
edbyacompet entcourtforacr i
minalof
fence
andeitherconv ictedoracqui ttedshallagainnotbet ri
edf ortheof f
enceorfor
anyothercr i
mi naloffenceofwhi chhecouldhav ebeenconv i
ctedatt het
ri
alof
thatoffence,save“ upont heorderofthesuperi
orcourtinthecour seofappealor
revi
ewpr oceedingsr elat
ingtot heconvict
ionoracquit
tal
.”

Themostusualt est
sfordeterminingtheval
idi
tyofthepleasofautr
efoisacqui
t
andautrefoisconvi
ctarewhet hertheaccusedhasbeenpr evi
ousl
yacquit
tedor
convi
ctedofthesameof fenceorofasubst ant
ial
lysimi
laroff
enceorwhetherhe
coul
dhav ebeenconv i
ctedatt hef i
rsttri
aloft heoffencewithwhichhei s
char
gedatt hesecond.

Prev i
ousconv ictionsandacqui ttal
scanl eadt oest oppelsinsubsequentcr iminal
proceedi ngs.Sect ion47ACap. 80providest hataf inaljudgmentofacompet ent
cour tforanycr i
mi nalpr oceedi ngs,whichdecl aresanyper sont obegui lt
yofa
cri
mi nalof fenceshal laf tertheexpi r
yoft het i
mel i
mi t
edf oranappealagai nst
suchj udgmentoraf terthedat eoft hedeci sionofanyappealt herei
n,whi chev er
i
st hel atest,bet akenasconcl usiveev i
dencet hatt heper sonsoconv ictedwas
guiltyoft hatof f
enceaschar ged.
InQueenCl eaner s&Dy ersLt d.vE. A.Co.andOt her s,t
het hirddefendantwasa
dri
v erofav ehiclei nvolv edi namot oracci dentandhadbeenconv i
ctedof
carelessdr i
vi
ng.I nt henegl i
genceact ionar i
singoutoft hesameacci dent,he
attempt edt ol eadev i
denceshowi nghisr easonsf orpleadinggui l
ty.Thepl ainti
ff
objected, cont endi ng t hat t he conv ict
ion was concl usiv
e ev idence of
carelessnessundersect ion47A.Thi sobj ectionwassust ai
ned.

Trevely
nJpoi nt
edoutt hattheexpression“ conclusiveevidence”i nsection 47A
meansev i
dencewhi chcannotbet hesubj ectmat t
erofdi spute,quali
ficat
ionor
chall
enge……….I twouldt her
eforebewr ongt oadmi tevi
dencet oexplainwhya
pleaofguiltywast enderedforitwouldatl eastgot oqual i
fyi fnottonulli
fywhat
thelegisl
aturehasdeclaredshallbeconcl usive.Itwasal socont endedf orthe3rd
defendantt hatthesectiononlyappliedt oot hercriminalpr oceedings-hel don
thispointi
tappliedbotht ocri
minalandci vi
lpr oceedings.

Therefor
e,incri
mi nalcases,judgment sofcivi
lcour
tsareadmissi
bleiftheyare
i
ni ssueorar er elev
antt omat t
ersini ssueandv i
cev er
sabutt heyarenot
conclusi
veproofofmat t
escont ainedtherei
n.Thisissobecausethedegr eeof
proofincri
minalcasesisdifferentfrom t
hedegreeofproofi
ncivi
lcases.

61
I
sissueest
oppedi
ncr
imi
nal
casesr
ecogni
zedi
ncr
imi
nal
procedur
e?

I
nEngland,issueestoppeldoesnotexistincri
minallaw;sohashel dtheHouse
ofLor
dsi nD.P.P.vHumpr ys,
mainreasonbeingthedi f
fi
cultyofascert
aini
ngthe
i
ssuesthatweredecidedonaccountoff actst
hattherearenopl eadi
ngsandthat
thej
uryretur
nsagener al
verdi
ctunsupportedbystatedreasons.

InKenya,therei
snor
easonwhyi
ssueest
oppelshoul
dnotappl
yincr
imi
nal
casesbecause;

 Jurytri
aldoesnotex isti
nKeny atherefor
e;thequest i
onofaj uryreturni
nga
generalverdi
ctunsuppor tedbyst at
edr easonsdoesnotar ise. Ther eare
assessors,ofcourse,andal ltr
ialintheHighCour tareconductedwi ththeaid
ofassessorsbuttheiropiniondoesnotbi ndthejudges.
 Thecr i
minalprocedurecodest atest hatajudgmentshal lcontai
nt hepoints
fordeterminati
on,thedeci siont hereonandt her easonthereof.I tcannot
ther
eforebear guedt hati tisdi ffi
cultoreveni mpossibletoascer tainthe
i
ssuest hatweredecided.

TYPESOFESTOPPEL

Est
oppel
sar
eofsi
xki
ndsnamel
y;

(
i) Byrecordi.
e.arisingfr
om aj
udgment
.
(
ii
) Bydeed
(
ii
i) Byconduct
(
iv) Equit
ableestoppel
(
v) Estoppelbynegligence
(
vi) PromissoryEstoppel

ESTOPPELBYDEED

Itisnowher eprov i
dedf orint heEvidenceAct ,butsincei
twasi nappli
cationor
operationbeforetheenact mentoft heAct ,itisassumedt hati
swasnoti ntended
tobeexcl udedandi thasbeenj udiciallyr ecognizedinthecaseofJenabhai
SachoovChamsa. I ti spr ecl
usi
onagai nstt hecompet entpart
iestoav al
id
contractandt heirpri
vi
est odenyitsf orceandef f
ectbyanyev i
denceofinf eri
or
solemni t
y.InGr eervKet tel,
itwasst ated“ Est oppelbydeedisaruleofevidence
founded on t he pr i
nciplet hata sol emn and unambi guous stat
ementor
engagementi nadeedbet akenasbi ndingbet weent hepart
iesandprivi
esand
thereforeasnotadmi tti
nganycont radi ctorypr oof.
”

Estoppelbydeedoper
atesonl
ybet
weenpart
iestot heinst
rumentonacti
ons
ari
singoutofthei
nstr
umentsandonst
atementstherei
n,whicharecl
earand

62
unambiguous.Howev er,wherether
ear
eclearandpropergroundsf
orr ect
ify
ing
adeed,asf orexample,becauseiti
sbaseduponami stakeoffact
,thentot he
ext
entofther ecti
fi
cat
ion,t
herecanbeplai
nlynoest
oppelbasedont heorigi
nal
for
m oftheinstrument
.

Ar ecit
alinthedeedmi ghtoper ateasanest oppel.Ther ecit
almustr el
ateto
specifi
cf act
s,mustbecer t
ain,cl earandunambi guousandwoul dnotav ai
l
personswhower enopar ti
esorpr iviestothedeed.Whenar ecit
alisi
ntendedto
beast at
ement,whichal lpartiest ot hedeedhav emut ual
l
yagr eedtoadmi tas
tr
ue, i
tisanestoppeluponal l
.Butwheni tisintendedtobet hestat
ementofone
partyonl y,t
heest oppeli sconf ined tot hatonepar tyonly,theestoppelis
confinedtothatpartyandt hei ntentionistobegat heredf
rom constructi
ngthe
i
nstrument .Ar eci
talofr eceiptofconsi derati
oni nadocumenthowev er
,does
notoper ateasanest oppel.Ref .E. A.
P.C.Co.vDandor aQuar ri
es(1967)E.A.
728at730

ScopeofOper
ati
on.

(
i) Onlyappl i
esbetweenpar ti
est othedeedandt hosecl
aimingt hr
ough
them.
(
ii
) Onl yappliestoli
ti
gati
onsar i
singonthedeed.
(
ii
i) Onlyappl iesto stat
ement sint hedeed which ar
emat erialtothe
transact
ionandwhi chareclearandunambiguous.
(
iv) I
tdoesnotpr eventapar t
yfrom sett
ingupapl eaofil
l
egalit
yorf r
aud
orf r
om av ai
l
inghimselfofeveryfact
,whichwouldhavegivenrisetoa
ri
ghtt or
escindthedeedi nequity
.

ESTOPPELBYCONDUCT

Thiskind ofestoppelcan ariseoutofan agr eement ,misrepr

esentati
on or
negli
gence.Forit
soperati
on,itisnecessarythattheconductshoul dhavebeen
suchast ocauseorpermi tanotherpersontobel i
evesomet hi
ngt obet r
ue,t
he
secondpersonmusti nfacthaveentert
ainedthisbeliefandhav eactedinsome
wayuponi t,
doingorfor
bear i
ngtodosomet hi
ngt husalter
inghisposit
iontohis
detr
imentwi t
htheresul
tt hattodenyt herepresentati
onwouldbet oprej
udi
ce
him.

ESTOPPELBYAGREEMENT

Ithappenst hattwopeopleagreeexpressl
yorbynecessar yimplication,thattheir
l
egalr elati
onsshallbebasedont heassumpt ionthatacer t
ainst ateoff acts
existsandwhent hi
shasbeendone, t
heor i
ginal
partiest
ot heagr eement ,aswel l
ast hoseclaimingthroughthem,areestoppedfrom denyi
ngt heexi stenceoft he
assumedst atesoffacts.Examplesfrom theEv i
denceActi ncludesect ion121
whi chpr ov
ides;Not enantofimmov ablepropertyorpersoncl ai
mi ngt hrough
sucht enantshallduri
ngtheconti
nuanceoft hetenancybeper mi t
tedt odenyt he

63
l
andlordofsucht enanthadatt hebegi
nningofthetenancyat i
tl
et osuch
i
mmov ablepr
opert
yandnopersonwhocameuponanyi mmovablepropert
yby
theli
cenceoft heper
soninpossessi
onther
eofshal
lbepermitt
edtodenyt hat
suchper sonhadar i
ghtt
osuchpossessionattheti
mewhent helicencewas
giv
en.

I
nt hecaseofRodset hvShaw,t heplaint
if
fasl andl
ordofaf ur
nisheddwel li
ng
houseclai
medv acantpossessionoft hepr emisesoccupiedbyt hedef endant.
Thedefendantcl medi
ai nteral
iathattheplainti
ffhadnot i
tl
etothepr opertydue
toacir
cumst ance,whicharosetenyearspriortot hebegi
nningofthetenancy .It
washeldthatt hedefendantwasest oppedf rom impingi
ngtheplaint
iff
’stit
leby
vi
rt
ueofsection121.

ESTOPPELBYREPRESENTATI
ON

Wher eoneper sonther epresentor,hasmadear epresentati

ontoanot herperson,
ther epresent
ee,withther esultofinducingtherepresenteeonthef ait
hofsuch
representati
on to al
terhi sposi t
ion to hisdetri
ment ,therepresenterin any
l
iti
gat i
ont hatmayaf terwardst akepl acebetweenhi m andther epresenteeis
estoppedf rom denyi
ngt herepresentation.

Repr esentati
onmadet other epresent
eemustbeclearandunambiguous.Inthe
caseofCanadi an&Domi nionSugarCo.Lt d.vCanadianNati
onalSteamships
Ltd.,ar eceiptst at
ingthatcar gowasi ngoodor derwasheldnot etostopa
purchaserf rom deny i
ngthisf actbecausei
trefer
redtoanunambi guousbil
lof
l
ading.Lor dWr ightsai
d;“Thewhol ecaseofest
oppelfai
lsi
fthest
atementisnot
suffi
cientl
ycl earandunequiv ocal.
”

Ther easonf orthisrequirementi ssinceanest oppeli smeantt oexcludean

i
nquirybyev i
dencei nt
ot hetruth,t
hosewhor el
yoni t(
statement)asanest oppel
mustcl earl
yestablishthatitamount st othatwhi chtheyassert.Meresi lence
cannotconst i
tutear epresentati
on-gi
vingrisetoanest oppelunl
esstherei sa
dutytospeakoract .I nGr eenwoodvMar t
insBankahusband’ sfailuret o
discl
oset hefactthathi
swi fehadbeenf or
ginghischequewashel dtoestophi m
fr
om allegingthistobet hecasei nanact iontor ecovertheamountpaidt ohi s
wifeanddebi t
edt ohisaccountbyhi sbank.

Forarepresentat
iontooper
ateasanestoppel
, i
tmustclear
lybeoneoffactand
notofthelaw.Amancannotbeest oppedf r
om stati
ngwhatthelawismer el
y
becausehepr evi
ousl
ymadeast at
ementoffutur
eintent
ion.

Fi
nal
ly
,norepresentat
ioncanoperat
e,asanest
oppeli
fther
esul
twoul
dbe
somet
hingt
hatisprohi
bit
edbyt
helaw.

ESTOPPELBYNEGLI
GENCE

64
Unliketheot
hertwoty
pes( agreementandr epresent
ati
on)
, t
hisheadofest oppel
oper at
esinfav
ourofav icti
m off r
audofsomet hi
rdpersonf aci
li
tatedbythe
carelessbr
eachofdut
yofcar ebyt heotherpar t
y.Theremustexi stthisdut
yof
careowedt osomeone.Ther emustbear elat
ionshi
pofcont r
actoragencyand
theremustbesomer easont othinkthatanactwoul dbedoneorwoul dnotbe
done.

InCov entrySheppar d&Co.vGr eatEast ernRai lCo. ,thedef endantcar elessly

i
ssuedt wodel iveryor dersr el
atingt ot hesameconsi gnmentofgoodst hus
enabli
ngt heper sont owhom t heywer ei ssuedt oobt ainanadv ancef rom t he
plai
ntif
fandt heywer ehel dtobeest oppedasagai nsthi mf rom deny i
ngt hatt he
goodsment i
onedi ntheor derwer ehel donbehal foftheassi gnor .Someonewho
keepsdocument soft hisnat ureintocirculationowesadut yt othosei nt
owhose
handst heymaycome. Wher et her
ei snocont r
actualdut yofcar ebr eachof
whichgi vesriset oanest oppel ,itisdiffi
cul ttoextractasaf egui di
ngpr i
nci pl
e
from theaut hori
tiesonest oppelbynegl igence. Prof .Crossar guesthati tis
possiblethatwhent hecasesandunder l
yingpr inci
plescomet obeaut horitati
v el
y
revi
ewed,i twi l
lbef oundt hatt her equirement sofdut yofcar eandpr oofof
carel
essnesswi l
lbedi spensedwi th.Allt hatisnecessar yisproofofi ntent i
onal
words,act sorconductt hatcanr easonabl ybeconst ruedasar epresentationby
thepresentortot herepr esent eewhoneednotbei ndi rectrelati
onship.

PROMI
SSORYESTOPPEL

Whenonepar t
ybyhi swor dsorconductmadet otheother,apr omiseor
assurancewhichwasi ntendedt oaff
ectthel egalrelati
onsbetweenthem andt o
beact edonaccordingl
y,thenoncetheot herpartyhast akenhim athi
swor dand
actedoni t
,theonewhogi vet hepromiseorassur ancecannotaf t
erwar
dsbe
al
lowedt oreverttothei
rpr evi
ousrelat
ionsasi fnosuchpr omiseorassur ance
hadbeenmadebyhi m buthemustacceptt heirlegalrel
ati
onssubjecttot he
quali
fi
cati
onswhi chhehimsel fhassointroduced.

This doctr
ine is deri
vati
ve ofa pr i
nciplein equit
yenunciated in Hughes v
Met r
opolit
anRai lCo.,“Ifparti
eswhohadent eredint
odef i
nit
el egalrelat
ions
after
wardsent eruponacour seofnegot i
ati
onswhi chhastheef fectofleading
oneoft hepar t
iestosupposet hatthestri
ctri
ghtsarisi
ngunderthecont ractwil
l
notbeenf orcedorwi l
lbekepti nsuspense,orheldinabeyance,thepersonwho
otherwi
semi ghthaveenforcedthoser i
ghtswillnotbeall
owedt oenf or
cet hem
wherei twoul dbei nequit
ablehavingr egar
dt ot hedeal
ingswhi chhav et hus
takenplacebet weentheparti
es.”

I
nChaseInter
nati
onalI
nvest
mentCo-op.vLaxi
membhaiWambuziJ. A.said“…
Nocasewascitedtousinwhom apr
omissor
yestoppelhadbeenusedtofound
anacti
on. I
tmaywel lbethatt
hemat t
erisfarfrom bei
ngsett
ledandIam

65
i
ncl
inedtothevi
ew t
hatapromissoryest
oppelcannotf
oundanacti
on.Byi
ts
def
ini
ti
onitcr
eat
esnocauseofacti
onwherether
ewasnonebefor
e.”

Thr
eeelement
sar enecessar
yf ort
heinvocat
ionoft
hedoct
ri
neasspel
touti
n
Nur
dinBandal
i
’scase“bef
oreitcanari
se;
”

 Onepartymusthavemadet oanotheraclearandunequiv
ocalr
epresent
ati
on
whichmayr el
atet
ot heenf
orcementoflegalri
ght
s,withtheI
ntenti
onthati
s
shouldbeact eduponbyt heotherpartyinthebeliefofthet r
uthofthe
repr
esentat
ionact
eduponit.
”

I
tisnotnecessar
ythatt
herepr
esent
eemusthav
ealter
edhisl
egalposi
ti
onin
t
hisr
espect
.InIncomeTaxCommissi
onervA.
Kpanachand.MadanJ.st
ated:

“Ifindmy sel
funabl et oacceptcounself ortheplainti
ff
’ssubmissi
ont hata
necessaryingredientofequi tabl
e( promissory)estoppelisthatthepromi see
shouldhav eheldtoal terhi
sposi t
ionont hefaithofthepromise.Idonott hink
sof arIconsi
deritenoughi fthepromi seeactedonit,asthedefendantdi
dint he
presentcase. It hinkcounself orthepl ai
ntif
f’
sargumenthasov erl
ookedt he
dif
ferencebetweenwhatIwoul dcallor di
naryandpr omissor
yestoppelli
keany
othertypeofest oppel,cannotbei nvolvedagainstast at
utor
yduty.”Ref.Mul j
i
JethavI .
T.Commi ssioner.

DI
FFERENCESBETWEENESTOPPELANDOTHERDOCTRI
NES.

Est
oppelandPr
esumpt
ion.

An estoppelis a personaldisquali
fi
cat
ion lai
d upon a per son peculi
arl
y
ci
rcumstancedfrom pr
ovingpart
icul
arfact
s,whereaspr esumpti
onisar ul
ethat
apart
icul
arinf
erenceistobedrawnfrom part
icul
arfact
s, whoev
erprov
est hem.

Est
oppelandResJudi
cat
a

 Estoppelispar tofthel aw ofev i

denceandpr oceedsupont heequi tabl
e
pri
ncipl
eofalteredsit
uat i
on,t
hedoct rineofr esjudicat
abelongstopr ocedure,
andisbasedupont heprinci
plethattheremustbeanendt olit
igation.
 Estoppelprohibit
s a par t
yf rom pr ovi
ng any thing,which contr adict
s his
previ
ousdeclarati
onoract stot hepr ejudiceoft hepartywhor elyingupon
them al
teredhispositi
on.Resj udicatapr ohibi
tsthecourtint
oinqui ri
ngi ntoa
mat t
eralr
eadyadjudicated.

I
not herwords,resjudicat
apr ecl
udesamanav err
ingt
hesamet hi
ngt wi
ce
overinsuccessi
veli
tigati
on,whileest
oppelpr
event
shim say
ingonethi
ngat
onetimeandt heoppositeatanother
.

66
Est
oppelandConcl
usi
vePr
oof

Whenaf acti
sconcl
usi
vel
yproved,i
tissoagai
nsttheentir
eworl
d.Estoppel
operat
esonl
yasagai
nstapar
ti
culari
ndi
vi
dualf
rom asser
ti
ngordenyi
ngcer
tai
n
fact
s.

Est
oppelandBr
eachofCont
ract

Thesamef al
sest at
ementmaygi verisetoacauseofact ionincontractfor
damages,butasest oppel,i
twouldnot ;i
tonlyprecl
udesthedefendantfrom
deny i
ngthetr
uthofsomest atementprevi
ousl
ymadebyhi m.Anact i
oncannot
bef oundedonit
.Thepl ainti
ffi
sonlyawardedrel
i
efowingtohisopponentbeing
estopped;andincaseswher etheplaint
if
fisestopped;i
tservesasagood
defencetothedefendant.

Est
oppelandWai
ver

EstoppelandWai v
erar eenti
rel
ydifferent.Estoppelisnotacauseofact ion.It
maybe est abli
shed t o assista plainti
ffin enforcing a cause ofacti
on by
preventingt heenforcingpartyfrom deny i
ngtheexi st
enceofsomef actessenti
al
toest ablisht hecauseofact i
on. I tisar uleofev idencewhichcomesi nt
o
operationi f
;
Thedef endantoranaut hor
izedagentofhi stothepl ai
nti
fforsomeoneonhi s
behalfhasmadeast atementoft heexistenceofthef act;

Wit htheint
enti
ont hattheplaint
if
fshouldactuponthef ai
thofthest at
ement .
Ont heotherhand,waiveriscontr
actual
,andmayconst i
tuteacauseofact i
on,i
t
i
sanagr eementt oreleaseornott oasser
tar ight
,e.g.i fanagentwi than
authori
tytomakesuchanagr eementonbehalfofaprincipalagr
eest owaiv ehi
s
pri
ncipal
’sri
ght,then(subjectt
oanyot herquest
ionsuchasconsi derati
on)the
pri
ncipalwil
lbeboundbyt hecontractnotbyest
oppel.Ther eisnosucht hingas
est
oppel bywaiver.

Est
oppelandAdmi
ssi
on

 Anadmi ssionmay,undercircumst ancesbi ndst r

angersaswel l,whereas
estoppelbindspar
ti
esandpr i
viesthereto.Itcannotbet akenadvantageofby
stranger
s.
 Estoppelbeingarul
eofev i
dence,anact ioncannotbef oundedoni t
, wher
eas
anact i
oncanbebasedonanadmi ssi on.
 Anadmi ssionofapartyisstr
ongev idenceagai nsthim,butheisatl i
bert
yto
provethatsuchadmissionwasmi stakenorunt rue.Butifanotherpersonhas

67
 beeni nducedbyi tt oalt
erhisposi t
ion,thepartyi sestoppedf rom disputing
i
tst r
ut hwithr especttot hatperson. Whenanadmi ssionhasbeenact ed
uponbyanot herperson,theadmi ssionisanest oppel,andt heestoppedpar t
y
i
sr equiredtomakegoodhi srepresentati
on;inot herwor ds,theadmissioni s
conclusive.Anest oppeldi f
fer
sf rom anadmi ssionint hatitcannotbet aken
advantageofbyst rangers.Itbindsonlyt heparti
esandpr i
vi
es.Anest oppel
i
sonl yar ul
eofev idence,foranact i
oncannotbef oundeduponi t
.

Admi
ssi
onmayOper
ateasEst
oppel

Anadmi ssi
oni snotconcl usiv
epr oofoft hemat t
eradmi tt
ed,buttheyar est rong
evidence againstt he per son maki ng them. The per son againstwhom an
admi ssi
oni sprovedi satl iber
tytoshowt hati twasmi stakenorunt rue;butsuch
admi ssi
ons,iftheyar eact eduponbyt het hirdperson,andi fsubstant i
verights
hav ebeencr eated,oper ateasest oppel .Thepar tymaki ngadmi ssionsi sbound
tomakegoodhi sr epresent at
ions.Thus,t houghadmi ssionsarenotconcl usive
proof,theyar esuf fi
cientpr oofwi thoutcor roborat
ion. Aper soni ssai dtobe
estoppedwhenhehas,byhi sdeclar at
ion,actoromi ssion,int
entionallycaused
orper mitt
edanot herper sontobel ieveat hingtobet r
ue,andt oactuponi t.I n
suchcasesnei t
herhenorhi srepresentati
v ecandenyt hetruthofthatt hi
ng.

REVI
SIONEXERCI
SES

1.Est
oppel
srendert
hepr
oofofcer
tai
nfact
sunnecessar
y.Expound.

2.Wr
iteshor
tnoteson
a.Estoppelbyrecor
d
b.Estoppelbydeed
c.Estoppelbyconduct

3.Di
ff
erent
iat
ebet
weencauseofact
ionandi
ssueest
oppel
.

68
 CHAPTER7

7.COMPETENCY,
COMPELLABI
LITYANDPRI
VILEGESOF
WITNESSES

COMPETENCY

General
ly,
allpersonsarecompetenttotesti
fyunl
essthecour tconsi
dersthatby
reasonoftenderage,extremeoldage,diseaseori
nfir
mi t
ytheyareincapableof
underst
andingthequestionsputtothem andofgivi
ngr at
ionalanswers.Evena
l
unaticiscompet entt
ot esti
fypr
ovidedhei snotpreventedbyhi sl
unacyf r
om
underst
andingthequesti
onsputtohim.

Undersect
ion126awi t
nesswhoi sunabletospeakmaygi veev
idenceinany
mannerinwhichhecanmakei tintel
l
igi
blee.g.bywrit
ingorbysignsinopen
cour
t.Suchevi
denceshal
lbedeemedt obeoralevi
dence.

Awi t
nesswhohastaken,arel
igi
ousvowofsil
encei
sdeemedt obe‘
unabl
eto
speak’andhemaygi
vehisev
idencei
nwrit
ingt
oquest
ionsputt
ohim.

NOTEaper sonwhoi sadeaf-

muteiscompet
entpr ovi
dedthathe/
shecan
communicat
ebyeithernoi
seorsi
gnswhi
chaninter
pretercani
nfor
mthecour
t
oft
hemeaning.
HamisivR (
1951)18EA217.

Section 127 pr
ovi
des f
orcompet
ence ofpart
ies t
o pr
oceedings and t
hei
r
spouses.Anaccompl i
ceshal
lbeacompetentwit
nessasagainstanaccused
person.Sect
ion141.

COMPELLABI
LITYANDPRI
VILEGE

Thegener alrul
ei sthatallcompet entwitnessesarecompel l
ableunlesstheyare
pri
vil
eged.Pr ivi
legeisanexcept ionalright,i
mmuni t
yorexempt ionbelongingto
aper sonbyv ir
tueofhi soffi
ceorst atus.Itispersonaltoitsbenefi
ciar
yandt he
personent i
tl
edt oitcannotwai veit.Ev enawi l
li
ngwi tnesscannotbeper mit
ted
togiv eevidenceifpubl i
cpol i
cydemandsi t
sexclusionf ortodosowoul dbe
defeatingi
tsexclusionarypurpose.

Pr
ivat
ePr
ivi
lege

Pri
vatepr i
vi
legewouldi ncl
udeaccusedper son’
sspousei nregar
dtomar i
tal
communi cati
ons.Accordingtosecti
on77( 7)oft
heconstit
uti
onnopersonwho
i
st r
iedofacr i
minalof
ficeshallbecompel l
edtogiveevi
denceatthetri
al.In
CharlesYoungOkangvR. 1984(unrepor
ted)aNi ger
iannati
onalwascharged

69
wit
hobtai
ninggoodsfalsel
ybyusi
ngafalsecard.Hehadhi sfinger
pri
ntst
aken
agai
nsthiswishes. Theissuewaswhet herhehadbeencompel l
edtogive
evi
dence.Thehighcour tofKeny
aheldt hatt
hetakingoffingerpr
int
sdidnot
amounttocompell
abi
li
ty.Thesect
ionmeantgivi
ngoralev
idence.

Pr
ivat
ePr
ivi
legeofWi
tness

Section128oft heActsay sthatawi t

nessshal lnotbeexcusedf rom answer i
ng
anyquest i
onast oanymat terrelevanttothemat teri
nissuei nanysuitori nany
ci
vilorcriminalproceeding,upont hegr oundthattheanswert osuchquest i
on
wil
lincri
minate,ormayt enddi rectl
yori ndi
rect
lytoincr
iminate,suchawi tnessto
apenal t
yorf or
fei
tureofanyki nd. But ,nosuchanswerwhi chawi tnessis
compel l
edt ogiveshallsubj ecthimt oanyar r
estorpr osecuti
on,orbepr oved
againsthimi nanycr i
mi nalpr oceeding,exceptapr osecutionf orgivenf al
se
evi
dencebysuchananswer .

Pr
ivi
legeoft
hecour
t

Section129r ef
erst othejudgeormagi str
atepr esi
dingoveracaseandnei t
her
ofthem canbecompel ledtoansweranyquest ionast ohisconductofanythi
ng,
whichcamet ohi sknowledgeinhi soffi
cialcapacit
yexceptont heor derofa
superiorcourt. Butt heycan bequest ioned on mat ter
swhi ch occur
red or
happenedwhent heywer epresi
ding,f
orexampl eifanassaulttookplacebefore
thecour t
.Thepr i
vi
legeistoenabl ethem towor kwi t
houtfearorfavourwhen
dischargi
ngtheirduti
es.

Pr
ivi
legeofMar
it
alCommuni
cat
ion

Under section 130 (

1) no per son shallbe compel l
ed t
o discl
ose any
communi cati
onmadet ohim orherdur i
ngmar ri
agebyt heotherspouse,nor
shallapersonbepermi
tt
edt odiscl
osesuchcommuni cat
ionwit
houttheconsent
ofthepersonwhomadei torherrepresentat
ivei
ninter
est
.

Butt
her
ear
eexcept
ionst
othi
sgener
alr
ule;

a) Wherethereisasuitbetweentheparti
estot
hemar r
iage.
b) Wherethereisanoffenceofbigamyoranyoffencethatrelat
estomor al
i
ty
underchapterXVofthepenal codecap.
63.
c) Wherethequestionrel
at estoanact/
omissi
onthataffectstheproper
tyof
ei
therspouseorthechildrenofeit
her
.

Thepri
vi
legeisbasedontheassumpt i
onthatt
her
eshouldbeutmostsecrecy
bet
weenthespouseandnothingshouldbecompul
sori
l
ydiscl
osedatt
hehands
oft
helaw.Not et
hatt
hepr
ivil
egedisappear
swhenathi
rdpart
yknowsaboutthe
communicat
ion.

70
Noteal sothatt hemar r
iageconsideredhereisthatmarr
iagewhichisbyl aw
bi
ndingdur i
ngt heli
feti
meoft heparti
esunlessdi
ssolv
edaccordi
ngtolaw.This
mar r
iagecanbemonogamousornotandi tincl
udesamar ri
ageundernat
iveor
tr
ibalcustom i
.e.customarylaw.

Pr
ivi
legeRel
ati
ngt
oOf
fi
cial
Recor
ds

Thishappenswhenthel
it
igantcal
l
sforadocumentforawit
nessandithappens
thatiti
si nthecust
odyoft hestat
e. Bef
oresuchpri
vi
legeisclai
medunder
secti
on131;

a) Themi nisterconcernedmustexami nethecontentsofadocument-t hey

maybesensi ti
ve.
b) Thedocumenthast of or
m partofunpubli
shedoffi
cialr
ecor
ds.
c) The mi nisterhas tof orm the opini
on thatthe production ofsuch
documentwoul d bepr ej
udici
altot hepublicservicebyr easonofi ts
contentsor
d) Becausei tbelongstoacl asswhichongr oundsofpublici
nterestshould
bewi t
hhel dfr
om producti
on.

Themi ni
sterhast ostatealltheaboveeitheronoathorbyaffidavi
tandinso
doingthedocument sshallnotbeadmi ssi
ble. Cont
entsofdocument sthat
shouldnotbepr oducedincludecabinetpaper sandminut
es,t hepermanent
secret
ary
’sadv i
cet omi ni
steretc. Themi nist
eroughttohaver egardtothe
overal
lwel f
are oft he st
atet o see whetherornott he pr
oduct i
on ofthe
documentssoughtwoul dharmi t
.

InDuncanvCammelLai r
d&Co.Lt d,asubmar inesunkduringwor
ldwarI
Ianda
widow deci
dedtosuet hebui l
derofnegligenceandt opr ovei
tshesoughtthe
companyt opr
oduceengi neeri
ngdocument srelati
ngtothesubmari
neandt he
crownclai
medpriv
ilege.ViscountSimonL. J.object
edtothepri
vat
eexaminat
ion
ofthedocumentsforthefoll
owingreasons;

a) Tohi mtheexecuti
vewasbet terpl
acedandpossesseddi
versevi
ewpoint
s
from whi
ch tor egardt
hedocumentt hanacourtofl
aw.
b) I
ft hecourtwereallowedtol ookatthedocumentinpriv
ateitwoul
dbe
tantamountt
ocommuni cat
ingtoonepartyi
ntheabsenceofanot
her.

Thi
sar gumentwasrejectedinConwayvRi mmer1968A.C.910whereitwas
hel
dt hati
nEnglandcourtshavepowertoexami
nethedocumentsandrul
eout
whetherornott
heyshouldbeproduced.

Int hecaseofMudav adivSemo. TheEl ecti

onPet
it
ionNo.121979theHi
gh
cour trul
edthatl
ett
ersthathadbeenwr itt
enaboutthechi
efint
erf
eri
ngwi
th
electionscoul
dnotbepr oducedbecauseofpubli
cinter
estsect
ion131was

71
concl
usi
ve.

Just
if
icat
iont
oexcl
udedocument
sundersect
ion131

a) ItencouragesCandour( openness)amongstservant
ssoastodiscuss
wit
houtfearofdisclosureincourts.
b) Thepr i
vil
egeprev entsorf orbi
dscr i
ti
cism agai
nstt
hegov
ernmentfor
embarrassingsi
tuations.

Pr
ivi
legeofof
fi
cialcommuni
cat
ion.S.
132

Nopublicoff
icershallbecompelledtodi
scl
osecommunicati
onsmadebyany
per
sontohimi nthecourseofhisduty
,whenheconsi
der
sthatt
hepubl
ici
nter
est
wouldsuff
erbythedisclosur
e.

Beforet heinserti
onofthewor ds‘byanyper son’i
n1972t hecaseofRishenChad
Mohi ndravMat hraDass194119KLR( 2)67whi chi nv
olvedpri
vateprosecuti
on
bythepr osecutorforcr
imi nalli
bel,Thepolicesuper i
ntendentwasaskedf orthe
fi
leofi nquirywhi chher ef used-t hatpublicinterestwouldsuffer. Thecour t
sustainedhi sobjecti
on,thatt hesectioncont ai
nednowor dsoflimit
ationandi t
didnotmat terwhethert hei nf
or mationcamef rom publ i
coffi
cersorpr iv
ate
sources.

InRaichwavSodhi1967EA624wasanor di
narycourtsuitcl aimingfordamages.
Thepol iceinspectorwhohadi nv
estigatedthemat t
erdecl inedt ogi vereasonas
towhyhet houghtthatthei r
onsheet sinquestionwer enotl ostduet othe
defendant ’
snegl i
genceonthebasi sthatpubli
cinterestwi llsuffer.Newbol dJ.
Saidt hatt hesect i
onwaswi deandgav epublicof fi
cersdi screti
ononwhat
evidencet heycanadducei ncour t
.Hear guedthatoneoft hefunctionsofthe
stateist oadmi ni
sterj
usti
ceandt hatcouldnotbedonewi t
houtsuchev i
dence.
Sosect ion132oughtt ober estr
icti
velyconstr
ued.Heov erruledt heideaofthe
policeforhehadnodut yt
or efusedisclosure.

Pr
ivi
leger
elat
ingt
oinf
ormat
ionofCommi
ssi
onofOf
fi
cesSect
ion133

Nojudge,magi st
rat
eorpoli
ceoffi
cershal
lbecompelledtosaywhencehegot
anyinfor
mationastothecommissi
onofanyoffenceandnorevenueof f
icershal
l
becompel l
edtosaywhencehegotanyinfor
mat i
onastothecommi ssionofany
off
enceagainstthelawrel
ati
ngtothepubli
crevenueorincomet ax,custom or
exer
cise.

Singhs/oSinghvR.195118EACA283t heappel
lantwasconvi
ctedofbei
ngin
possessi
onofr awgold.Thepol
i
cedecli
nedtogiveinf
ormati
ontotheadvocat
e
ast owhogav ehimtheinf
ormat
ion.Thecourtagreedwit
hthepoli
cewhohad
cl
aimedpriv
ilege.

72
I
nShaw vR.1970EA 39,anAi rpor
tsecur i
tyoff
icercl
aimedpriv
il
egeform
di
sclosingnamesofinformersinconnectionwi t
hachargeofbri
beryagai
nstt
he
accusedperson. Itwasallegedt hattheaccusedhadat t
emptedtobri
bethe
off
icer. Onappeal,itwashel dt hatheshoul dhav ebeencompell
edtogi v
e
i
nformat i
onforasecuri
tyoff
icerisnotincludedundersecti
on132whichshoul
d
begivenrestr
ict
ivei
nter
pret
ation.

Pr
ivi
legeofl
egal
prof
essi
onSect
ion134

Unlesswit
hexpresspermissi
onoft
hecli
ent,noadvocat
eshallbepermittedto
discl
oseanycommuni cat
ionmadet ohi
mi nthecourseandpur poseofhi s
employment.Notevenadocumentoradvi
cegivent
ot hecli
ent.Thereasonfor
thisi
stoenabl
etheli
ti
ganttocommuni
cat
efreel
ywithhisadvocat
e.

Butt he adv ocatei s prevent

ed from concealing any i
nformat
ion made i
n
fur
theranceofi l
l
egalact soranyf actshowingt hatfr
audorcr i
mehasbeen
commi tt
ed. Thepr ivi
legecont i
nuesevenaf teremploymenthasceasedand
appli
est oallhisoffi
cewor kers.Accordingtosect i
on136,ifanypar
tytoasui
t
cal
lsanyadv ocate,int
erpreter
,cler
korser v
antasawi tness,heisdeemedto
havewai vedthepr i
vi
lege.
Seealsosect ions138-140and142.

REVI
SIONEXERCI
SES

1.Whoi
scompet
entt
ogi
veev
idence?

2.Discusst
helawr
elat
ingtocompetenceandcompel
l
abil
i
tyofwi
tnesses
andill
ust
rat
e thecircumst
ancesbarr
ingaper
sonfr
om gi
vi
ngevidence.

3.Whati
spr
ivi
l
eger
elat
ingt
oof
fi
cial
document
s

4.Whatexcepti
onsaret
her
etot
hegener
alr
ulet
hatev
eryper
soni
sa
competentwit
ness

73
 CHAPTER8

8.EXAMI
NATI
ONOFWI
TNESSES

THEORDEROFPRODUCTI
ONOFWI
TNESSES

Inbothcivi
landcr i
minalcasesapart
ycal
lswi
tnessestoassi
stinprov
ingtheir
casebyt esti
fyingtother el
evantf
actsormatter
sr el
atedtofact
sini ssue.
Witnessesthroughquesti
onsandanswersgeneral
lyadduceevi
dence.Thisi s
donein(3)stages:

1.Exami
nat
ion-
in-
chi
ef

Thi
si stheexami
nationofawi t
nessbyapar tywhocal l
shimtot est
if
y.
Sect
ion 145(1). Thepurposeist oobt ai
nevidencedesi
redbytheparty
cal
li
ngthewit
nessinachronologicalororder
lymanner.Insodoi
ng,cert
ain
i
ssuesoughtt
obebor nei
nmi ndbyt heexaminer
.

 Heshoul dhav eregardt oexcl

usi
onaryrulesofev i
dencee.g.hearsay
,
opinion,
characteretc.
 Leadingquestionsi .
e.anyquesti
onsuggest ingtheanswerwhi chthe
personput t
ingitwi shesorexpectstor eceive,mustnotbeaskedi f
objectedtobyt heopposi tepart
y,exceptwi ththepermissi
onoft he
court.Ifaquest ionmer el
ysuggestsasubj ectwit
houtsuggestingan
answeroraspeci fi
cthingiti
snotleadi
ng.Thusoneshoul dnotaska
wit
ness: “I
snoty ournamesoandso?

Ther easonforexcludi
ngl eadi
ngquesti
onsistoenableapart
yt o
preparehisstor
yandev ol
v eitinhi
sv er
ywords.Leadi
ngquest
ions
provi
der oom forconcoct
ionofev i
dence.Apartf
rom dur
ingcr
oss-
examinati
on,l
eadingquest
ionsareal
lowed:

a)I
nundisput
edorsuffi
cient
lypr
ovedmatt
ers.
b)I
n a sit
uat
ion where one want
s a wi
tness t
oident
if
ythe
weaponusedintheatt
ack.

I
ft he witness cannotr ememberany thi
ng dur i
ng examinat
ion-i
n-chiefhe i s
al
lowedt or ef
reshhismemor yfrom thestatementhewr oteinthepol icef i
le,or
byanyot herdocument ,whi
chwasmadeaboutt hesamet i
mewi ththeev entshe
wishestot est
ifyon,thecontempor anei
tyoft hedocument,isaquest ionoff act
.
Thewi t
nessdoesnotneedt obet heonewhomadet hedocumente.g.i nt heuse
ofbodiesofaccount s,oneneednotbet heclerkwhomadesuchent ries.Oncea
documenthasbeenusedt or efr
eshhismi ndi thast obehandedov ert ot he
adversepartyoradvocateappr eci
atingi
t.Ifhedeemsi tfi
thecancr oss- exami ne

74
t
hewi
tnesswi
thr
egar
dtot
hecont
enti
nthatdocument
.

Note:Themerefactt
hatadocumentisusedt
oref
resht
hememor
yofawi
tness
doesnotmakeitanit
em ofev
idence.

2.Cr
oss–Exami
nat
ion

The examinati
on ofwitnessesbythe adv
erse par
tyi
scal
l
ed hi
scr
oss-
examinati
on.
Theobjectofcross-
examinat
ioni
stwo-
fol
d:

(
i) Toshaket hecredibil
i
tyofawi t
nesswi thanaim ofdisqual
i
fyi
nghi s
evi
denceordestroyingit
.
(
ii
) Tobringoutt heinformati
on,whicht hecross-
exami
nerbeli
evesthe
wit
ness,isabletodeposet obutdi dnotcomeouti nexaminat
ion-
in-
chi
efe.g.del
i
berateomi ssi
onofevidence.

Section147Cr oss-
exami nat
ionofaper soncal
ledt
opr oduceadocument .A
wit
nesssummonedmer elytoproduceadocumentdoesnotbecomeawi tness
forpur poses ofcross-examination,si
nce he may ei
theratt
end the cour
t
personall
yormaydeput eanyper sontoproducet
hedocumentincour
t.

Sect i
on153Cr oss-examinati
onast oprevi
ousstatementsinwr i
ting.Awi t
ness
maybecr oss-examinedast opreviousstatementsmadebyhi mi nwrit
ing( or
reducedintowr it
ing),andrel
evanttomat ter
sinquesti
on,wi t
houtsuchwr i
ti
ng
beingshownt ohi m, orbei
ngproved.Howev eri
fitisi
ntendedtocont r
adicthim
byt hewri
ting,hisattenti
onmust,beforethewrit
ingcanbepr ov ed,becalledt o
thosepartsofit,whicharetobeusedf ort
hepurposeofcontradictinghim.

Thi
ssecti
onindi
cat
esoneoft
hemodesi
nwhi
cht
hecr
edi
tofawi
tnessmaybe
i
mpeached.

A wit
nessmaybecr oss-exami nedast oanyst atement sast orel
ev antfacts
madebyhi m ont hef or
meroccasi oni
nwr iti
ngorr educedt owrit
ing,without
showingt hewrit
ingtohim orpr ov i
ngthesame.Buti fitisintendedtocont r
adict
hi
m byt hewr i
ti
ng,hisatt
ent i
onmustbecal l
edt ot
hewr it
ing.Theobj ectofthese
provi
sionsi seit
hert otestt hememor yofawi tnessort ocontradicthim by
prev
iousst atementsi nwr it
ing. Suchwr i
ti
ngmaybeondocument s,letters,
depositi
ons,police diar
ies,et c. Hi s pr
evious verbalst atements may al so
contr
adictthewitness.

Sect
ion 154,Cr
oss-
exami
nati
onto shakecredit. Whenawi
tnessi
scr
oss-
examined,
hemaybeaskedanyquest
ionwhi
cht ends:

 Tot
esthi
sver
aci
tyor

75
  Todiscov
erwhohei sandwhatishispositi
oninli
fe;or
 Toshakehiscredi
t,byinj
uri
nghi scharact
er,al
thought heanswerto
suchquesti
onsmighttenddirectl
yorindir
ectl
ytoi ncr
iminat
ehim or
exposehi
mt oapenalt
yorforf
eitur
e.

I
ncr
oss-examinat
ion,awitnessmaybeaskedquest
ions,notonl
yregarding
t
hef
actsinissueordir
ect
lyrelev
antt
othem,
butal
soregardi
ngthefol
lowing:

a)Quest ionst endingt otestthewi tness,meansofknowl edge,oppor t

uniti
es
ofobser vation,r easonsforr ecollectionandbel ief,andpower sofmemor y,
percepti
onandj udgment.
b)Quest ionst endingt oexposet heer rors,omi ssi
ons,cont radict
ionsand
i
mpr obabi li
ti
esi nhistesti
mony .
c)Quest ions tendi ng t
oi mpeach hi s creditby at tacking his charact
er
antecedent s,associ at
esandmodeofl i
v i
ng,andi nchar act
erant ecedents,
associatesandmodeofl i
ving,andi npar t
icularbyel i
cit
ing:
 Thathehasmadepr ev i
ousst atement sinconsistentwi thhi spresent
testi
mony ;ort otheparti
esi nthecase; or
 Thathei sbiasedorpar tiali
nr elati
ont othepar ti
esint hecase;or
 Thathehasbeenconv ictedofanycr iminaloffence.

I
tmayal
sobenot
edt
hat
:

 Thequest i
onsincross-examinat
ionneed notbeli
mited t
ot he
mattersuponwhicht hewi t
nesshasal r
eadybeenexamined-i
n-
chi
ef,butt
heymaybeext endedtothewholecase;
 Thecourtmay,i
ndiscret
ion,permi
tthepersonwhocal
lsawitness
tocr
oss-exami
nehim undersomeci r
cumstances.

I
MPEACHI
NGTHECREDI
TOFAWI
TNESS

Thecredi
tofawi t
nessmaybei mpeachedi
nthefol
l
owingfourwaysbyt
he
adv
ersepart
y(orwi
thconsentoft
hecourt,
byt
hepar
tywhocal
l
shim):

(
i) Bytheevidenceofper sonswhotesti
fyt hatthey,fr
om t hei rknowl
edge
oft
hewi tness,bel
ievehimtobeunwor t
hyofcr edit
.
(
ii
) Bypr oofthatthewi t
nesshasbeenbr i
bed, orhasaccept edt heofferof
abr i
beorhasr ecei
ved anyothercor r
upti nducementt o gi
vehi s
evi
dence.
(
ii
i) Bypr oofofaf ormerst at
ementinconsi st
entwi t
h anypar tofhi s
evi
dencewhi chisli
abletobecontr
adicted.
(
iv) Whenamani sprosecutedforr
apeoranat temptt or av ish,itmaybe
swornthattheaccusedwasofgener all
yi mmor alcharact er.

Howev
er,
itmayal
sobenot
edt
hatawi
tnessdecl
ari
nganot
herwi
tnesst
obe

76
 unwort
hyofcr edi
tcannot
,inhi
sexami nati
oni n-chi
ef,gi
vereasonsforhis
bel
ief
,buthemaybeaskedhi sreasonsincross-examinat
ion.Moreover
,the
answerthathegiv
escannotbecontradi
ctedthoughiftheyarefal
se,maybe
aft
erwar
dst obechar
gedwithgi
vingfal
seevidence.

Secti
on162Whenawi t
nesshasbeenaskedandhasanswer edanyquestion
whichisrel
evanttotheinqui
ryonlyi
nsof arasintendtoshakehi scr
edi
tby
i
njuri
nghischaract
er,noev i
dencecanbegi v
ent ocontradi
cthim,but,i
fhe
answersf
alsel
y,hemayafter
wardsbechar
gedwi t
hgivingf
alseev
idence.

Except
ions1–i fawi
tnessisaskedwhetherhehasbeenpr
eviousl
yconvi
ctedof
anycri
minalanddeni
esit,
evidencemaybegivenofhi
sprev
iousconvi
cti
on.

Excepti
on 2-i fa witness i
s asked any quest
ion t
ending toimpeach hi
s
i
mpar t
iali
ty,and answersitby denyi
ng the eff
ects suggest
ed,he maybe
contr
adicted.

I
ll
ust
rat
ions

Aclai
m agai
nstanunder wri
terisrevi
sit
edonthegroundoff
raud.Thecl ai
mant
i
saskedwhet her
,inaf ormertransact
ion,hehadnotmadeaf raudul
entclai
m.
Hedeniesit
.Ev idenceisof f
eredtoshow thathedidmakesuchcl aim.The
evi
dencei
sinadmissibl
e.

Awi t
nessisaskedwhetherhewasdismi
ssedfr
om asi
tuat
ionf
ordi
shonest
y.
Hedeniesi
t.Evi
dencei
sof feredt
oshowt
hathewasdi
smissedf
ordi
shonest
y.
Theevi
dencei
snotadmissible.

Aaf f
irmst hatonacer tai
ndayhesawBatNakur u.Evi
denceisofferedtowhat
thatA was on t hatday atNai r
obi
. The evi
dence i
s admissibl
e,notas
contradicti
ngt heall
egedfactthatBwasseenonthedayinquesti
oni nNakur
u.
Ineachoft hesecasesthewitness,
mighti
fhi
sdeni
alwasfal
se,bechar gedwi
th
givi
ngf alseevidence.

Ai saskedwhet herhi sfamilyhadnothadabl oodyfendwi t

hthef amil
yofB
againstwhom hegi vesev i
dence.Hedeniesit.Hemi ghtbecontradi
ctedont he
groundt hatthequest i
ont endstoi mpeachhisimparti
alit
y. Whenawi t
ness
deposest ofact
s,whi charer el
evantevi
dence,maybegi venincontr
adict
ionof
whathehasst ated. Butwhenwhathedeposest oaffectonlyhiscredit
,no
evidencetocontradicthim canbel edf
orthesolepurposeofshakinghiscredit
byinjuri
nghischaracter.

HOSTI
LEWI
TNESS

A“ Host
il
ewitness”i
sonewhof rom t
hemanneri
nwhichhegi
vesevi
dence,
showsthatheisnotdesi
rousoft
ell
i
ngthet
rut
htot
hecourt
.Awit
nesswhois

77
gai
nedov erbytheopposit
epart
yisahost i
lewit
ness.Themerefactt
hatata
gi
ventrial
,awi tnesstel
lsadiff
erentstor
yf r
om thattol
d byhi
m befor
ea
magist
ratedoesnecessar
il
ymakehim host
il
e.

Iti
si nterest
ingt onot ethattheActdoesnotuset heexpressi
ona“ host
il
e
wit
ness” ,t
herebyav oi
dingtheconfusionprev ai
li
ngunderEngli
shlawsbytheuse
oftheterm.Thesect ionmer el
yconf er
sdi scret
ionont hecour
ttoall
owapar t
y
tocross-examinehisownwi t
ness.
Ifawi t
ness’st esti
monyi sadv er
set othepar t
ycalli
nghim,suchpar t
yisnot
enti
tl
edasar ighttocross-examinehisownwi t
ness;hecandosoonl ywit
hthe
l
eaveoft hecour t.Discret
ionisgiventothecour ttoall
owornotallowaperson
tocross-examinehisownwi t
nessashost i
le.

Thewi tnessmaybeaskedl eadi ngquest i

on,orquest ionsast ohispr evious
statement si nwriti
ng,orhi scr editmaybei mpeached.Ther uleprohibi
ti
ngt he
askingofl eadingquest i
onst oapar ty’sownwi tnesshasi t
sf oundati
onont he
assumpt i
ont hatawi tnessisal way sbiasedinf
av orofthepar tycall
inghim.Thi s
rulemustofnecessi tybyr el
axedwhent hewit
nessexhi bitsanopposi tefeeling,
viz,whenbyhi sconduct ,i
.e.attit
ude,demeanor ,orunwill
ingnesst ogiveanswer s,
showst hathei shost i
leorunf r
iendlytot hepar
tycalli
nghi m.Thecour tinsucha
casemayi nitsdiscreti
on,per mitapar tytoputanyquest i
ont ohisownwi t
ness,
whichmaybeputi ncr oss-exami nati
onbyhi sopponent si.e.
,mayper mi tapar ty
tocr oss-examinehi sownwi tness, al
thoughtheput t
ingofl eadingquest i
ondoes
notal way samountt ocr oss-exami nati
on.

I
tistober ememberedthatthediscr
eti
onoft hecourtt opermittheputt
ingof
l
eadi
ngquestions,ori
not herwordstopermit“cross-examinat
ion”isabsol
ute
andi
ndependentofanyquesti
onsof“host
il
it
y”oradverseness.

Merel
ygivi
ngunf avourablet
est
imonycannotbeenought odeclar
eawi t
ness
host
il
e,f
orthepartycalli
nghi
m.Hei shostil
eifhetri
estoinj
urethepart
y’scase
bysuppr
essingthetruth.Thecourthas,bythissect
ion(i
.e.sect
ion161),been
gi
venaverywidediscreti
onandisatli
bert
ytoallowapartytocross-
examinehis
wit
ness:

 Whenhi stemper
,atti
tude,demeanoretc,inthewitness-
boxshow a
dist
inctl
yhosti
l
efeel
i
ngt owar
dsthepart
ycall
inghi
m;or
 Whenconceal i
nghist ruesenti
mentshedoesnotexhi bitanyhostil
e
feel
ing,butmakesstat
ement scontr
arytowhathewascal ledtoprove,
andbyhi smannerofgi vi
ngevi
dencefair
lyandtel
li
ngthet r
uthtothe
court.

I
fawi t
nessisallowedtobecr oss-exami
nedbyt hepartycall
i
nghi m,ont he
groundthathehasturnedhosti
l
e,theenti
reev
idenceofsuchawi tnessdoesnot
becomewor thl
ess.Thecour tcan,i
nsuchcases,considertheev i
denceanda

78
par
toft
heev i
dencecanbeused,
eit
hert
osuppor
tthepr
osecut
ionori
ndef
ence
oft
heaccused.

3.Re–Exami
nat
ion

Itisdi r
ectedatclear
inganydoubtorambigui
ti
est hatmayhaveari
senfr
om
cross-examinat
ion. I
tisneverasecond chancef orthepart
yto cal
lmore
evidenceortoasknewquesti
ons.Noleadi
ngquest
ionstobeasked.

Undersecti
on146( 4)Cap80t hecourtisgiv
endiscreti
ontorecal
lawitnessfor
fur
therexaminat
ionorcr oss-
examinati
on.Ifthi
sdiscret
ioni
sexerci
sed,thent
he
part
ieshavetherightagaintocross-
examineorre-
exami ner
especti
vel
y.

79
REVI
SIONEXERCI
SE

1)Whatar
eobj
ect
ivesofcr
oss-
exami
nat
ion?

2)Whoi
sahost
il
ewi
tness?

3)Whati
sthepur
poseofr
e-exami
nat
ionofawi
tness?

4)Whati
sal
eadi
ngquest
ion?Andwhenmayl
eadi
ngquest
ionsbeasked?

80
 CHAPTER9

9.BURDENSOFPROOF

MEANI
NGOFBURDENOFPROOF

Thet
erm bur
denofpr
oofi
ssomewhatconf
usi
ngi
nthati
tisusedi
ndi
ff
erent
senses.Thedi
sti
nct
ioni
scommonl
ymadebycomment
ator
sont
hel
aw of
ev
idencebet
weent
heuseoft
het
ermi
nthesenseoft
hebur
den,whi
chl
i
es
t
hroughoutt
het
ri
alofest
abl
i
shi
ngacaseandt
heonusofpr
oduci
ngev
idenceat
anypar
ti
cul
arst
agedur
ingt
het
ri
al

Thesemaybecat
egor
izedi
ntot
woasLegalbur
denofpr
oofandEv
ident
ial
bur
denofpr
oof
.Bur
denofpr
oofr
efer
stot
hedut
yofapar
tyt
opr
oduceev
idence
andpr
ovef
act
s.Ther
ulesonbur
denofpr
oofdeci
dewhomustl
eadev
idence
andpr
ovef
act
sint
ri
al.

LEGALBURDENOFPROOF

Thi
sisonl
ytal
kedofi
nthest
ri
ctsenseoft
hewor
d.I
tref
erst
othebur
den,
whi
ch
t
hel
aw i
mposesuponapar
tyt
opr
ovecer
tai
nfact
s,whi
char
eini
ssuei
na
pr
oceedi
ng.I
tist
her
efor
ear
equi
rementt
hatt
hepar
tybear
ingi
tmustdi
schar
ge
i
toranobl
i
gat
ionoft
hepar
tyt
omeett
her
equi
rement
soft
hel
awi
nrespectofa
f
acti
nissuebef
orei
tmaymakeadeci
sioni
nfav
ourofwhatt
hatper
sonasser
ts.

Gener
all
ythel
egal
bur
denofpr
oofmaybedi
schar
gedonabal
anceofpr
obabi
l
ity
orbey
ondanyr
easonabl
edoubt
sdependi
ngont
henat
ureoft
hecaseandt
he
par
tybear
ingt
hebur
den.

81
I
ncr
imi
nalcasest
hel
egalbur
denofpr
oofnor
mal
l
yli
esi
nthepr
osecut
ionandi
n
ci
vi
lcasesi
tli
esont
hepl
aint
if
fort
heappl
i
cant
.SeeSect
ions107and109KEA.

Sect
ion107pr
ovi
dest
hatt
hebur
denofpr
oofl
i
esont
hepar
tywhodesi
rest
he
cour
ttogi
vej
udgmenti
nrespectofanypar
ti
cul
arl
i
abi
l
ityorr
ight
.Suchapar
ty
mustpr
ovet
heexi
stenceoff
act
sonwhi
chsuchr
ightorl
i
abi
l
itydepends.

Sect
ion109st
atessi
mpl
ythatt
hebur
denofpr
oofi
nrespectofanypar
ti
cul
ar
f
actl
i
esont
heper
sonwhowi
shest
hecour
ttobel
i
evei
ntheexi
stenceoft
hat
par
ti
cul
arf
act
.In
Ry
devBushel
l(1967EA817t
hecour
tofAppeal
stat
edt
hati
fany
onewi
shest
he
cour
ttobel
i
evet
hatany
thi
ngi
sanactofGodt
hent
hebur
denl
i
esonhi
mto
pr
oveso.

I
nUgandaNat
ionalTr
adi
ngCor
por
ati
onvMwemba(
1958)23EACA62t
hecour
t
est
abl
i
shedt
hati
fanypar
tywi
shest
orel
yont
hev
ali
dit
yofanydocument
,then
hebear
sthebur
denofpr
ovi
ngt
hev
ali
dit
yandef
fectoft
hatdocument
.

I
nCommi
ssi
onerofI
ncomeTaxvBapoo(
1958)EA223t
hecour
test
abl
i
shed
t
hati
fat
axpay
ercompl
ainst
hathehasbeenchar
gedanexpensi
vei
ncomet
ax
t
henhebear
sthebur
denofpr
oof
.

LEGALBURDENOFPROOFI
NRESPECTOFCRI
MINALCASES

Thegener
alr
ulei
ssetouti
nsect
ion77(
2)(
a)oft
heconst
it
uti
onofKeny
a.I
t
pr
ovi
dest
hat
,“Anaccusedper
soni
spr
esumedi
nnocentunt
ilpr
ovedgui
l
ty.
”In
ef
fectt
hatsect
ion pl
aceson t
hepr
osecut
ion t
hebur
den t
o pr
ovet
hatt
he
accusedper
soni
sgui
l
ty.

Ther
ear
ecer
tai
nexcept
ionst
othegener
alr
ule,howev
er.Thebasi
sfort
he
samei
slai
doutbysect
ion77(
12)(
a),
whi
chpr
ovi
dest
hati
ncer
tai
ninst
ancesi
t

82
i
spr
operf
ort
heaccusedper
sont
obeart
hebur
denofpr
oof
.Anot
herbasi
sfor
t
heexcept
ioni
slai
dbysect
ion111(
1)KEAt
hatr
ecogni
zest
hatt
hebur
denof
pr
oofshi
ft
stot
heaccusedper
sonundercer
tai
nci
rcumst
ances.

Speci
fi
cal
l
y,i
tst
atest
hat
,“Wher
etheaccusedper
sonwi
shest
oshowt
hathi
s
casef
all
swi
thi
ncer
tai
nexcept
ionsorqual
i
ficat
ionst
othegener
alof
fenceunder
whi
chhei
schar
gedt
hent
hebur
denofpr
ovi
ngsuchqual
i
ficat
ionswhi
char
e
wi
thi
ntheknowl
edgeoft
heaccusedper
sonl
i
eont
heaccusedper
sonhi
msel
f.
”

Forexampl
eifanaccusedper
soni
schar
gedwi
tht
heof
fenceoft
reasonandhe
i
soft
hev
iewt
hathi
scasef
all
swi
thi
nthequal
i
ficat
iont
otheof
fenceoft
reason
t
hent
hebur
dent
opr
ovet
hatqual
i
ficat
ionl
i
esonhi
m.

Si
mil
arl
y,i
faper
sonchar
gedwi
tht
heof
fenceofmur
derwi
shest
oshowt
hathi
s
casef
all
swi
thi
ntheexcept
ionf
orexampl
ethatt
hedeat
hoccur
redwhi
l
ehewas
suppr
essi
ng a r
iot
,then t
he bur
den ofpr
ooff
all
s on hi
m t
o pr
ovet
hat
qual
i
ficat
ion.

Undersect
ion111(
1)t
hebur
denont
heaccusedwi
l
lbeconsi
der
eddi
schar
gedi
f
t
he cour
tis oft
he opi
nion t
hati
nli
ghtoft
he ev
idence adduced by t
he
pr
osecut
ionanddef
encet
her
ear
isesar
easonabl
edoubtast
othegui
l
toft
he
accusedper
son.

See sect
ion12PenalCode
RvEdwar
ds(
1975)QB27

Undersect
ion111(
2)(
c)KEA,i
ftheaccusedper
sonwi
shest
orel
yont
he
def
enceofi
nsani
tyori
ntoxi
cat
ion,hebear
sthebur
denofpr
oofi
nrespectof
t
hosedef
ences.Gener
all
y,undersect
ion11oft
hePenalCode,anaccused
per
soni
sal
way
spr
esumedsaneandi
fhewi
shest
opr
ovehei
sinsanehebear
s
t
hebur
den.

83
I
nNy
aki
tes/
oOy
ugivR(
1959)EA332,t
heev
idenceoft
hepr
osecut
ionaswel
l
ast
heev
idenceoft
hedef
encewi
tnessesshowedt
hatt
heaccusedper
sonwas
i
ntoxi
cat
edatt
het
imehecommi
tt
edt
heof
fence.Exceptf
orwhatt
hedef
ence
wi
tnesses sai
dthe accused per
son di
d nothi
msel
frai
se t
he def
ence of
i
ntoxi
cat
ion.Thet
ri
alcour
thel
dthatbyf
ail
i
ngt
orai
set
hedef
enceofi
ntoxi
cat
ion
t
heaccusedper
sonf
ail
edt
odi
schar
get
hebur
denofpr
oofagai
nsthi
m.

Onappeal
,thecour
thel
dthatt
hedeci
sionoft
hecour
twaswr
ongbecauset
he
bur
denpl
acedont
heaccusedundersect
ion111(
2)KEAi
snott
hebur
denof
r
aisi
ng t
hedef
enceofi
ntoxi
cat
ion.Rat
her
,iti
sthebur
den ofpr
ovi
ng t
hat
def
ence.

Seeal
so RvKamaus/
oNj
oroge(
1939)EACA133
Rv
.Kachi
nga(
1946)13EACA185
Rv
.Sai
diKabi
la(
1963)EA1

Apar
tfr
om t
hePenalCodeandKEA,
ther
ear
esomeot
herst
atut
est
hatpl
acet
he
bur
denofpr
oofont
heaccusedper
sonf
orexampl
e:

i
. TheI
mmi
grat
ionActCap172

Sect
ion15t
her
eofi
ndi
cat
est
hati
danyper
soni
schar
gedwi
thanof
fence
ofbei
ngi
nKeny
ail
l
egal
l
yandher
aisest
hedef
encet
hathei
saKeny
an
ci
ti
zen,
thebur
denofpr
ovi
nghi
sKeny
anci
ti
zenshi
pli
esonhi
m.

i
i. Pr
event
ionofCor
rupt
ionAct

I
faper
soni
schar
gedundersect
ion7(
1)and(
2)ofcor
rupt
ion,i
tis
pr
esumedt
hatanymoneyr
ecei
vedbyhi
m asapubl
i
cser
vantwasof
fer
ed
cor
rupt
lyandt
hebur
denofpr
oofl
i
esonhi
mtoshow t
hati
twasnot

84
 cor
rupt
.

i
ii
. Wi
ldl
if
eConser
vat
ionandManagementActCap376

Undersect
ion39(
4),
ifanyper
soni
schar
gedwi
tht
heof
fenceofbei
ngi
n
possessi
onofanygamet
rophy
,thenhebear
sthebur
denofpr
ovi
ngt
hat
hewasdeal
i
ngwi
thsucht
rophyl
awf
ull
y.

i
v. St
ockPr
oduceActCap55

Undersect
ion 9 (
1),i
fanyper
son i
sar
rest
ed wi
th st
ockr
easonabl
y
suspect
edt
obest
olenorunl
awf
ull
yobt
ained,
thenhebear
sthebur
denof
pr
ovi
ngt
hathehadt
hest
ockl
awf
ull
y.

v
. Publ
icHeal
thActCap242

Undersect
ion7(
1),
iti
sgener
all
yanof
fencef
oraper
sonsuf
fer
ingf
rom a
v
ener
ealdi
seasei
ncommuni
cabl
efor
mtocont
inuet
obei
nempl
oyment
i
nahot
elorf
act
orydeal
i
ngwi
thf
oodorchi
l
dren.
I
faper
soni
schar
gedwi
tht
hatof
fence,t
henhebear
sthebur
denof
pr
ovi
ngt
hathedi
dnotknow orsuspectort
hathehadnor
easonabl
e
meansofknowi
ngt
hathewassosuf
fer
ing.

LEGALBURDENOFPROOFI
NCI
VILCASES

Thegener
alr
ulewi
thr
espectt
oci
vi
lcasesi
sthatt
hepar
tyseeki
ngar
eli
efowes
t
hel
egalbur
denofpr
oof
.Thi
smaybet
hepl
aint
if
fort
heappl
i
cantorpet
it
ioner
.
Thebasi
sfort
hatgener
alr
ulei
sfoundi
nSs107and109KEA.TheActhowev
er
r
ecogni
zessomeexcept
ionst
othegener
alr
ule.

85
Thesear
e:
a.Sect
ion112whi
chpr
ovi
dest
hat“i
fanyf
acti
sespeci
all
ywi
thi
nthe
knowl
edgeofapar
ti
cul
arpar
tyt
hent
hebur
denofpr
ovi
ngt
hesef
act
sin
di
spr
ovi
ngt
hem l
i
esont
hatpar
ty.

b.Undersect
ion 115 wher
etwo per
sonsar
eshownt
o hav
ebeeni
na
r
elat
ionshi
pofpar
tner
s,pr
inci
pal
,agentorl
andl
ordandt
enantandi
tis
shownt
hatatal
lmat
eri
alt
imest
heyhav
ebeenact
ingi
nthei
rrespect
ive
capaci
ti
est
henanypar
tywhoal
l
egest
hatatapar
ti
cul
art
imei
nissueany
par
tydi
dnotacti
nthatcapaci
tyt
hent
heper
sonmaki
ngt
heal
l
egat
ions
bear
sthebur
denofpr
oof
.

c.Undersect
ion116t
her
eisapr
escr
ipt
iont
hatanyper
sonf
oundwi
tha
t
hingi
nhi
spossessi
oni
stheownerofsuchat
hing.I
fanyper
sonal
l
eges
t
hathei
snott
heownert
henhebear
sthebur
denofpr
oof
.

d.Undersect
ion117i
tispr
ovi
dedt
hatwher
eaquest
ionar
isesast
othe
goodf
ait
hofanyt
ransact
ionsandi
tisshownt
hatoneoft
hepar
ti
est
o
t
het
ransact
ionst
oodi
naposi
ti
onofact
iveconf
idencei
nrel
ati
ont
othe
ot
herpar
ty,t
hent
hebur
denofpr
ovi
ngt
hegoodf
ait
hoft
het
ransact
ion
l
i
esont
hepar
tyst
andi
ngi
ntheposi
ti
onofact
iveconf
idence.

SeeOt
tomanBankvMawani(
1965)EA464

e.ResI
psaLoqui
tor
Thi
sist
heef
fectt
hatwhenev
erapar
tyt
othepr
oceedi
ngspl
eadst
his
pr
inci
ple,
thebur
denofpr
oofaut
omat
ical
l
yshi
ft
stot
heot
herpar
tywhoi
s

86
 di
sput
ingnegl
i
gence.

EVI
DENTI
ALBURDENOFPROOF

Si
mpl
yst
ated,ev
ident
ialbur
den ofpr
oofr
efer
stot
he bur
den ofadduci
ng
ev
idence.I
not
herwor
ds,i
tist
hebur
denont
hepar
tywhowi
shest
osucceedi
n
anyl
i
tigat
iont
oadduceev
idencei
nhi
sfav
our
.

Anypar
tywi
shi
ngt
osucceedmustal
way
sadduceev
idenceexcepti
nrespectof
mat
ter
srequi
ri
ngnoj
udi
cialpr
oof
.Thi
sispr
ovi
dedf
orundersect
ion108KEAt
o
t
heef
fectt
hatt
heper
sonwhowoul
dfai
li
fnoev
idencewer
egi
venonei
thersi
de
bear
sthebur
denofpr
oof
.

Ev
ident
ialbur
denofpr
oofl
i
eswi
tht
heper
sonwhobear
sthel
egalbur
denof
pr
oofunt
ilandunl
esst
hebur
denshi
ft
s.

I
ncr
imi
nalcases,gener
all
yaf
tert
heev
idencehasbeenl
edbyt
hepr
osecut
ion
t
hent
hebur
denofpr
oofshi
ft
stot
heot
herpar
tyassoonasapr
imaf
aci
ecasei
s
made.

Apr
imaf
aci
ecasei
sessent
ial
l
yaf
indi
ngi
nlawt
otheef
fectt
hati
nli
ghtoft
he
ev
idencebef
oret
hecour
tandt
hef
act
soft
hecase,t
hecour
tmaypr
oceedt
o
l
awf
ull
yconv
ictandt
hecour
tmustconv
icti
fiti
spr
ovedbey
ondr
easonabl
e
doubtt
hatt
heaccusedper
soni
sgui
l
ty.Thecour
tcanonl
yar
ri
veatt
hati
fthe
def
encehasnotsof
argi
vendi
spr
ovi
ngev
idencet
othecour
t.

I
nthecaseofRv
.Bhat
t(1975)EA332at334-335t
hecour
tst
atedt
hat“
itmay
notbeeasyt
odef
i smeantbyapr
newhati imaf
aci
ecasebutatl
easti
tmust
meanoneofwhi
char
easonabl
etr
ibunalpr
oper
lydi
rect
ingi
tsmi
ndt
othel
aw
andt
heev
idencewoul
dconv
icti
fnoexpl
anat
ioni
sof
fer
edbyt
hedef
ence.
”

87
STANDARDOFPROOF

Thi
sessent
ial
l
ymeanst
hedegr
eeofpr
oofort
hel
evelofper
suasi
veness,
whi
ch
t
hepar
tybear
ingt
hebur
denofpr
oofmustsat
isf
ybef
oret
hecour
t,makesa
f
indi
ngi
nhi
sfav
our
.Incr
imi
nalcasest
hest
andar
dofpr
oofr
equi
redi
sbey
ond
anyr
easonabl
edoubt
.Thest
andar
dof‘
bey
ondr
easonabl
edoubt
’hasbeen
def
inedcl
assi
cal
l
ybyLor
dDenni
ngi
nthecaseofMi
ll
ervMi
nist
erofPensi
ons
(
1947)2ALLER372at373-374wher
ehesai
dthat
:
“
Thedegr
eei
swel
lset
tl
ed i
tneednotr
eachcer
tai
ntybutmustcar
rya
hi
ghdegr
eeofpr
obabi
l
ity
.Pr
oofbey
ondr
easonabl
edoubtdoesnotmean
pr
oofbey
ond a shadow ofdoubt
;the l
aw woul
dfai
lto pr
otectt
he
communi
tyi
fitadmi
tt
edf
anci
fulpossi
bil
i
tiest
odef
lectt
hecour
seof
j
ust
ice.I
ftheev
idencei
ssost
rongagai
nstamanast
oleav
eonl
ya
r
emot
epossi
bil
i
tyi
nhi
sfav
ourwhi
chcanbedi
smi
ssedwi
tht
hesent
ence
‘
ofcour
sei
tspossi
ble’butnoti
nthel
eastpr
obabl
ethent
hecasei
s
pr
ovedbey
ondr
easonabl
edoubtbutnot
hingshor
toft
hatwoul
dsuf
fi
ce.
”

I
nci
vi
lcasest
hest
andar
dofpr
oofr
equi
redi
sthatofast
andar
dofpr
obabi
l
ity
.
Thi
sst
andar
donl
yrequi
rest
hepar
tyt
opr
ovet
hati
tsmor
epr
obabl
ethannot
.
Lor
dDenni
ngi
nthecaseofMi
ll
ervMi
nist
erofPensi
onsal
soexpl
ainedt
his
st
andar
dofpr
oof
.

Hesai
d,
“
Thatdegr
ee i
s wel
lset
tl
ed.I
tmustcar
rya r
easonabl
e degr
ee of
pr
obabi
l
itybutnotsohi
ghasi
srequi
redi
nacr
imi
nalcase-i
ftheev
idence
i
ssucht
hatt
het
ri
bunalcansay‘
wet
hinki
tmor
epr
obabl
ethannot
’then
t
hebur
deni
sdi
schar
ged.Buti
fthepr
obabi
l
iti
esar
eequal
,theni
tsnot
.”

See R.
G.Pat
elvLal
jiMakanj
i(1957)EA314
Mat
haivMat
hai(
1980)KLR….
.

REVI
SIONQUESTI
ONS

88
1) Whatar
ethepri
nci
plesifanybehi
ndj
udi
cialal
l
ocat
ionoft
hel
egalbur
den
ofpr
oofi
ncri
minalcases?

2) Di
ff
erent
iat
ebet
weenl
egal
andev
ident
ial
bur
denofpr
oof

3) Whati
smeantby‘
standar
dofpr
oof
’?

4) Wheni
sapr
imaf
aci
ecaseest
abl
i
shed?

89
 CHAPTER10

10. FACTSNOTREQUI
RINGPROOF

JUDI
CIALNOTI
CE

Therear ecert
ainmatter
sorf act
s,whichneednotbepr ovedincour
tbyany
evidence.Thecourtpr
oceedsonthebasisthatsuchmat t
ersexi
standi
twi
llnot
requir
eanyev i
dencetobeadducedtopr
ov eordisposesuchmatter
s.

Thetoneforjudici
alnot i
ceissetundersection59Cap80,whi chprovidesthat
nofactofwhi cht hecour tshal
ltakejudi
cialnoti
ceneedbepr ov
ed.Judicial
Noti
cemaybedef inedasasi t
uat
ionwher ebythecourttakescognizanceor
not
iceofmat t
ers,whi charesonotori
ous,orsoclearl
yestabli
shedthatther
ei s
noneedforthem tobepr ovedbywayoff or
mal evi
dence.

I
nef
fectt
her
efor
eJudi
cial
Not
icei
simpor
tantf
oranumberofr
easons:

1.I
tsav
est
imeandspeedsupj
udi
cial
proceedi
ngs.

2.I
tpr
ovi
desunif
ormit
yinjudi
cial
deci
sionsbecauseal
lcour
tsshoul
dnot
ice
mat
ter
sthatar
erequi
redtobejudi
cial
lynot
iced.

Judici
alNot i
ceacknowledgesthefactt hatjudi
cialoff
icer
sarenoti gnor
ant
persons.Like allother human beings,they should be expected to be
knowledgeableorawareofcert
ainbasicfact
s.Suchf act
sarenormallyobvi
ous
i
nt hemi ndsofthejudi
cialof
fi
cersandt heyshouldreasonabl
yexcuseparti
es
fr
om provingthem.

Thelaw ofev
idencer
ecogni
zesf
ourcat
egor
iesoff
act
s,whi
char
ejudi
cial
l
y
not
iced:

1.Thosenoti
cedwit
houtinquir
y
Thesearenormal
lyfacts,whichar
esonotor
ioust
hatthecour
tswil
lnot
wasteti
meconducti
ngani nquiryf
ort
hem.AnexamplewouldbeActsof
Parl
iament
.

2.Thosenoti
cedafteri
nqui
ry:t
hesearematt
ersorf act
sinrespectofwhich
thecour
trequi
resbasici
nformat
iontobepresent
edt oit
.Theymayr el
ate
to matt
ersofpol i
ti
cs,hi
storyorartorcer t
ain pr
ofessi
ons.Exampl e,
customs

3.Thosenot
icedoutofj
udi
cial
off
icer
’sexper
ienceandeducat
ion.

90
 4.Thosenot
icedbecausel
awr
equi
rest
hem t
obenot
iced.

Secti
on60l i
stsfactstobet akenjudici
alNoticeofunder4above.Theseinclude:
namesofpl aces;mat t
ersrelati
ngt ot i
me( forexample‘thear
restoccurredat
1.00o’
clock)
;ordinarycausesofnat ure(forexamplethesunri
sesfrom t
heEast
andset stothewest )
;geogr aphi
calboundar ies;or
dinar
ymeaningofEngl i
sh
words;andwrit
tenlaws.

I
nr espectoflaws,unti
l1965t hecourtsinEastAf r
icausedt otakeJudi cial
Noticeofcustomarylaw buti
n1965t heCour tofAppealmadeadeci sioni n
KimanivGikanga(1965)EA735.Heret hecourtofAppealdecidedbyamaj ority
thatcust
omarylaw cannotbetakenjudici
alnoti
ceof.Anypart ywhowishest o
benefi
torrelyoncustomar yl
aw mustspeci f
ical
lybr
ingev i
dencet oestablish
thatcust
om.

Undersecti
on60( 2),(
3)thecour t
sar epermit
tedt or
esortorref
ert obooksor
otherdocumentstoaidthem towar dsdeter
miningwhetheramat tershoul dbe
j
udicial
l
ynoticed.Consequent
ly,ifanypar t
yinv i
testhecourttot akej udici
al
noti
ceofaf actthecourtmayr equiresuchapar t
ytpr oducet her elevant
document.Fail
uret
odosoent i
tlesthecourttodecli
netotakej
udici
al not
ice.

Undersect
ion60(1)(b)cour
tsarepermit
tedtotakejudi
cial
noti
ceofthegeneral
courseofproceedi
ngsofpar l
iamentbutt hecourtisnotcompel l
edt otake
j
udicial
not
iceofanystat
ementsthatarecontai
nedinparl
iament
aryr
ecords.

MohammedTakivR( 1961)EA206
Thecour twascal ledupont ot akejudi
cialnoti
ceoff actsrelat
ingtonaturaland
art
if
ici
aldi visi
onoft i
meandgeogr aphicaldivi
sionsoft hewor l
dandpubl i
c
hol
idays.
Apar t
yappl iedtocour tt
ocompelat t
endanceofawi tnesswhoatt hatti
mewas
i
nSwi tzerland.Int hecir
cumst ancesoft hecase,t hecour texpressl
yjudiciall
y
noti
cedt hef actt
hatSwi tzer
landwasi nEur opeandt heproceedingsweret aking
pl
acei nKampal ainUgandaandi twouldbeexcessi vel
yexpensivetoimpor ta
wit
nessf rom Switzerl
andt oKampal a.

CommissionerofCust
omsvS. K.Panachand(1961)EA303
I
nthiscasethecourtt
ookjudi
cialnot
iceoft
hedistancebet
weent
heHagueand
Nai
robiandacceptedthatitwoul dbeunreasonabletobri
ngawit
nessfr
om
Haguetotesti
fyi
nNair
obi.

Sal
ehMohammedvR.(
1951)AC391

Thehusband soughtto di
vor
cet hewifeongr oundsofadult
eryto adduce
evi
dencet
otheef fectt
hatt
heystayedtoget
herhappil
yandbothofthem were
meeti
ngthei
rconjugalduti
es.Someti
mehewentonat r
ipabroadwherehe

91
stayedf orseveralmonths.Onhi sr et
urnhef oundt hatthewi fehadcommi t
ted
adulter
yi nhisabsence.Thewi f
ear guedthatthecour tshouldtakejudici
alnot
ice
ofthef actthatpregnancylastsforaper i
odoft imeandt hatshehadconcei ved
beforethehusbandl ef
tforthetripabroad.Itwasadducedi nevidencethatthe
peri
odbet weenthetimet hebabywasbor nandt het imehel eftforabroadwas
360day s.TheHouseofLor dsrefusedt otakej udici
alnot i
ceofapr egnancy
l
asting 360 day s.Theywer epr epared totakej udi
cialnoticeoft henor mal
gestati
onofpr egnancybeing280day s(9mont hs).LordSimmonsst at
ed:

“Wher easi
tstruethatthecour
tmusttakejudi
cialnot
iceofthenormal
gestat
ionperi
od,courtshoul
dshutit
seyestoabnormalgestati
onandit
shouldther
efor
ebeconcl udedthatachi
ldborn12mont hsaftercoi
tus
mustbeoneofadul t
ery.
”

Undersect
ion 60(1)t
hecour
tsar
erequi
redt
otakej
udi
cialnot
iceofmat
ter
sof
gener
alandlocal
notor
iet
y.

I
nRE:Oxf ordPoorRates (1857)8QB184t hecourtt
ookjudi
cialnoti
ceofthe
f
actt hatOxf
ordUniver
sit
yisani nst
itut
ionsetupforpur
posesofl ear
ningand
r
eli
gionandtheref
oreexemptedfrom payingt
axes.

InBur nsvEdman( 1970)2QB 541t heplai

ntif
flostherhusbandi nar oad
accidentandt henshesoughtdamagesi ncompensationfortheloss.Accor ding
totheev idenceadducedt hehusbandwasacr i
minalwhohadpr eviouslyserved
twoj ai
ltermsf orv ar
iouscri
minalof
fences.Therewasnoev i
denceatal ltoshow
thatanyt imei nhi sli
feti
mehehadhel dempl oyment.Thepl ai
ntif
fcl ear
lyknew
thatanymoneygi ventoherbyherhusbandwasmoneyobt ai
nedoutofcr ime.In
theci r
cumst ances,thecourtacceptedtotakejudi
cialnoti
ceoft hef actthatthe
l
ifeofacr i
mi nalisanunhappyoneandsot hereisnothingmucht hathel ooses
even i fhe di es.Consequentl
yt he courtassessed damages f orl oss of
expectationofl if
eathalfrat
e.

Ry
devBushel
l(1967)EA817

Inthiscaset heplai
nti
ffsuedf ordamagesoccasionedt ohi
scof feepl
antsasa
resultofthedefendant’
sactbydi rect
ingt
hef l
owoff loodwatert
ot heplai
ntif
f’
s
coffeeplantati
on.Thedef endantarguedthatheavyr ai
ns,whichhadcor rosi
ve
effects,
occasionedthedamage.Thecour tdecli
nedt otakejudi
cialnot
iceofthe
highdensityofrai
nfal
lthatwasofsuchextraordi
narynature.

REVI
SIONQUESTI
ONS

1)Whatf
act
smayt
hecour
ttakej
udi
cial
not
iceof
?

2)Def
ine‘
j
udi
cial
not
ice’

92
3)Whati
sthepur
poseofj
udi
cial
not
ice?

93
 SELF-
EXAMI
NATI
ONQUESTI
ONS

MODELTESTPAPER1

1.Def
ineev
idenceanddi
scussatl
eastf
ivei
temsofj
udi
cial
evi
dence

2.Whereawi tnessbecomesunwi
ll
ingt
otel
lthetr
utht
hepar
tycal
l
inghi
mis
enti
tl
edt ocrossexaminehim onhi
sevidence;wi
tht
heaidofdeci
ded
casesjust
if
yt hi
sstat
ement
.

3.Inwhatway sdoesthelaw ofevi

dencediff
eri
nci
vilandcr
imi
nalcases
especi
all
yinmatt
ersper
tai
ningtostandar
dofpr
oof
?

4.Amollohasbeenconv i
ctedofburglar
yhehadbeencaut ionedatBuruburu
Poli
cestat
ionwherehemadeasel f-
expl
anatorystat
ement .Hewast hen
tr
ansfer
redtoindustr
ialareawhereheadmi ttedcommi tt
ingtheoffence
ontheimpli
edassumpt i
ont hathewouldbegr ant
edbond.Hi sconf
ession
wasadmi t
tedinevidencedur i
ngthetri
alandi tf
ormedt hebasisforhis
convi
cti
on.Hehascomet oy ouforadviseonhi snextcauseofact ion,
advi
sehim

5.Theadmi ssibi
li
tyorother
wiseofchar
acterevi
dencedependsonwhether
theevi
dencesoughtt obeadducedi sofgoodorbadchar act
er.Di
scuss
theadmissibil
i
tyofsuchevidencei
ncri
minalcases

6.Whati
sthedi
ff
erencebet
weenaconf
essi
onandanadmi
ssi
on?

7.Besi
desthecour
tsonlyexper
tsareall
owedt
ogi
veopi
nionev
idencebut
onl
yinthei
rar
eaofexper
ti
se.Expound

8.Wr
iteshortnot
esonthef ol
l
owing
a)Standardofproof
b)Dy i
ngdeclar
ati
ons
c)Document ar
yev i
dence
d)Circumstant
ialevi
dence

94
 MODELTESTPAPER2

1. “
Theburdenofpr
oofi
sont
heper
sonwhoaf
fi
rms,nott
heper
sonwho
deni
es”
.Comment.

2.Themer efactthatevidenceofawi t
nessi ncludesev i
denceast owords
spoken by anot herper son who is notcal led is no obj ect
ion t
oits
admi ssi
bil
it
ywor dsspokenar efact
sjustlikeanyot heractionbyahuman
bei
ng.i fthespeakingoft hewordisar elevantf act,awi tnessmaygive
evi
dencet hattheywer espoken. aquestionofhear sayonl yar
iseswhen
thewor dsspokenar ereli
edont esti
monial l
y.Discusst heexcepti
onsto
hearsayil
lustr
ati
ngy ouranswerbyr ef
erencet odeci dedcases

3.Thecour t
swhileadmitt
ingfact
sshowingsy
stem shoul
dhaveregar
dto
theprej
udici
alef
fectofsuchevi
dencesucht
hati
tshouldni
tout
weighit
s
probati
veval
uecomment

4.Howdoesest
oppel
byr
ecor
dar
ise?

5.Whatismeantby‘ pri
vi
lege’i
nthelaw ofev
idence?Isal
ett
erheaded
‘
wit
houtpr
ejudi
ce’
invari
ablyi
nadmi
ssibl
easevi
dence?

6.Suppl
yadef
ini
ti
onofResGest
aeandgi
veanaccountofi
tsr
ati
onal

7.Whatexcept
ionsar et
her
etot
hegener
alr
ulet
hatev
eryper
soni
sa
compet
entwitness?

8.Wr
iteshortnoteson
a.Pr oofofhandwrit
ing
b.Re- examinat
ion
c.Par oleevi
dence

95
CASES
(RvSal im 43
Abdul l
aKat wevUganda1964E. A.477 47
Achi engvR( 1972)EA37 23
AlibinHassanvR.1960E. A. 46
AllanGodf freyv .R.( 1947)KLR44 18
Bur nsvEdman( 1970)2QB541 85
Commi ssi onerofCust omsvSKPanachand1961( EA)303 39
Commi ssi onerofI ncomeTaxvBapoo( 1958)EA223 76
D.P. Pv .Boar dman( 1974)3Al l
ER87 21
Har ri
sv .D. P.P.( 1952)AC694 22
Jasungas/ oAkumuvR( 1954)21EACA331 39
KimanivGi kanga( 1965)EA735 84
Kitsmi l
ev s.UgandaCr im App.No. 7of1976 43
Kur umavR 31
Lawl essvDueal e 29
Maki nvA. GForNewSout hWal es(1894)AC57 20
Maxwel lvD. P.P 46
MillervMi nisterofPensi ons(1947)2ALLER372at373-374 81,
82
MohammedSaedAkr abivR( 1956)23EACA512 17
MohammedTakivR( 1961)EA206 84
MugovR( 1960)E. A.124 45
NjugunavR 31
NoorMohammedvR.( 1949)ALLER365 22
Ny akites/ oOy ugivR( 1959)EA332 77
Ochaus/ oOsi gaivR, 33
Odi ndovR1969E. A.12 43
OmondivR1967EACA 47
OttomanBankvMawani( 1965)EA464 80
Per kinsvJef fery 20
RvAr mst rong( 1922)2KB555 23
RvBal dry 31
RvBedi ngf ield 11
RvBond( 1906)2KB389 23
RvBr abin&Anot her( 1947)E.A.C.A.80 12
RvChar l
esDaki( 1960)EA34 38
RvEdwar ds( 1975)QB27 77
RvGokal dasKanj i(1949)EACA116 15
RvKabat eleine( 1964)13EACA164 39

96
RvKamaus/ oNj oroge( 1939)EACA133 78
RvKi pker ingAr apKoske194916EACA135 8
RvMasal u( 1967)EA355 39
RvNdol o( 1926)10KLR11 37
RvPat elB.N.( 1957)EA416 15
RvPr emj iKur ji 13
RvRat ten 11
RvSt raffen( 1952)2QB911 24
RvThompson 32
RvTur ner 4
RvWi nf i
el d193914Al lE.R. 46
Rv .Bhat t(1975)EA332at334-335 81
Rv .Kachi nga( 1946)13EACA185 78
Rv .Maki ndi 18
Rv .Sai diKabi la(1963)EA1 78
Rv .Smi th( 1915)11Cr .AppRep.229 24
R.vRei d19231KB104. 47
R.vSi lver l
ock 42
R.vSi ms1946KB531at539 4
R.vCockar( 1960 45
R.vSamuel( 1956)40Cr im Appealcases 45
RamadhanI smai lvR 11
RE:Oxf ordPoorRat es( 1857)8QB184 85
Riversv s.R( 1953)20EACA147 47
RydevBushel l(1967)EA817 76,
85
SalehMohammedvR.( 1951)AC391 84
ShawvR.1970EA39 67
Sl
at terievPool ey 29
StanleyMusi ngavR ( 1951)18EACA211 15
StephenvR1973E. A. 43
Sti
rlandvD. P.P 47
Subr amani am vPubl icPr osecut
or(1956)1WLR965 36
SwamivKi ngEmper or 30
Thor nhillvThor nhi
ll 37
TuwameivUganda 33
WaughvR1950( AC)203 38
Willi
amsvI nnzs( 1Camp364 27

97
 GLOSSARY
Acqui
t: Theverdi
ctofaj
urydecl
ari
ngaper
soni
ndi
ctedand
tr
iedt
obenotguil
t.

ActofGod: Somegener alpubl

i
ccalami t
ylikest
orm,eart
hquake,
fl
oods,li
ght
ningoraforestfir
eduet onatur
aldueto
natural
causesofwhicheitherthearr
ival
orforce,
couldnothavebeenforeseenorguardedagainst.

Af
fi
dav
it: Aswor nstatementinwr
it
ingswornbefor
eanot
aryor
otheroff
icesenti
tl
edtoadmini
steroat
hsor
acknowledgements.

Ambi
gui
ty: Thefactt
hatawordoraphraseort
hegener
alsense
ofadocumentorapartofi
tcoul
dequal
l
yapplyto
morethanonethi
ngorevent
.Thewordambigui
tyis
thesameasequiv
ocat
ion.

Bur
denofPr
oof
: Inacivilcasethedutyofconvinci
ngaj udgeorjuryby
preponderanceofev i
dencethatanallegat
ion,orthe
entir
eal l
egati
onnecessarytoobtai
naj udgmentis
true.Inacr i
minalcaseiti
sthedutyofest abl
i
shing
theguiltoftheaccusedbeyondar easonabledoubt.

Causeofact
ion: Thosefact
swhichifall
egedandprov
edwoul
d
sust
ainajudgmentforaplai
nti
ff
.

Cer
tai
nty
: Accuracy
,defi
nit
eness,
clear
ness,
opposedt
owhati
s
ambiguous,v
ague,andgeneral
.

Ci
rcumst
ant
ialev
idence: Theev i
denceder i
vedf r
om anyot hersourcethant he
testimonyoft hosewhowi tnessedtheactwhi chis
char gedagai
nstaper sonaccusedofacr i
me.
Fingerpri
nts,possessionofst olenpropert
yort he
weaponused, opportunityandmot iv
ear eexampl eof
circumstanti
al evi
dence.

Col
lat
eralf
act
s: Fact
snotdi
rect
lybear
ingupont
hef
act
sini
ssue.

Di
rectev
idence: Evidencegivenbytest
imonyofonewhohashear da
fact,orbytheprof
ferofdocumentorsomeot her
concr et
eobjectwhenthequest
ionoffacti
nvolves
suchanobj ect.Di
sti
nguishedf
rom ci
rcumstanti
al
evidence.

98
Di
rectexami
nat
ion: Theexami nat
ionofawitnessbythepart
ycal
li
nghi
m
totest
if
y;alsoknownasexami nat
ioni
nchief
.
Examinati
onbyt headv
ersepartyi
scross-
examinati
on.

Est
oppeli
nPai
s: Theequi t
abl
er ul
ethatwhenanybywor ds,actsor
abstenti
ons,hadinducedsomeonet oactast hougha
si
tuati
onorr el
ati
onshipexi
stedorhadacer t
ain
charactermaynotthereaf
terbelegal
lydenied,ift
odo
sowi l
lcausedetri
menttthepersonwhor el
iedonit.
Thisissomet i
mescalledequit
ableestopped.

Ev
idence: Anythingthatmayl egal
lybesubmitt
edt oacourtto
prov
eanasser t
ionaboutamat teroffact.Ther
esult
ofevidenceisproofintheLegalsense,andoneofthe
methodsofev idenceisbyoraltest
imony .Thewhole
bodyofr ul
es,establi
shedbothbycour t
sandstatut
es.

Ev
ident
iar
y: Capabl
eofbei
ngusedasev
idence.

Fact
: From t
heLat
inword“
faci
o”t
odo, somet
hingwhi
chas
beendoneorwhi
chhashappened.

Hear
sayev
idence: Evidencethatconsi
stsinsomethi
ngthathasbeen
tol
dt oawi t
nessrathert
hansomethi
nghehas
himselfobservedorofwhichhehaspersonal
knowledge.

I
mmat
eri
al: Notsubst
anti
all
yconnect
edwi
tht
hemat
terunder
di
sputeori
ndisput
e.

Mal
iceaf
oret
hought
: At er
m necessaryi
nani ndi
ctmentformurder.It
i
mpl i
esthattheint
entiontoki
llortocommitthe
fel
onythatresul
tedinkil
li
ngexistedatsometi
me
evenifforaveryshortti
me,beforetheactwasdone.
Alsocall
ed“makepr epense”.

Par
oleev
idence: Evi
dencegi venbywordofmout h.Aruleofevi
dence,
whichprohibit
stherecei
ptofparol
e,ev
idenceto
contradi
ct,
addt oorvaryt
hetermsofawr it
ten
agreement.

Pr
esumpt
ion: Aninf
erencewhichajudgeasajur
yisrequi
redto
drawfr
om cert
ainfact
swhichhavebeenprovedor
admit
ted.

99
Pr
imaf
aci
e: Atfirstv
iew, ani
nferencedrawnaboutathingby
mer eobservanceofi toraboutanevenbyknowledge
ofit
sacci dencewithoutfurt
herinv
esti
gat
ionineit
her
case.
Pr
ivi
lege: Abenef i
torimmuni tyconferr
edbylawonaper sonor
groupofper sons.

Pr
ivi
legeCommuni
cat
ions: Communicati
onsbetweencertainpersonse.g.
l
awy erandcl i
ent
,husbandandwife,doctorand
parent ;
whichmaynotbedi v
ulgedbyt esti
monyupon
thetrialofanacti
on.Thecommuni cationsarethus
protectedbecauseoftheconfi
denti
alrelat
ion,which
existsbetweentheparti
es.

Reasonabl
edoubt
: Thedegreeofuncert
aintyabouttheguil
tofthe
accused,whichwoul
dr equi
reacourttobringina
verdi
ctof“notgui
l
ty”
.Nopr ecisetestofreasonabi
l
ity
i
nt hi
smat t
ercanbemade.

Rebut
: Tocont
radi
ct,
disappr
ove.

Rebut
tabl
epr
esumpt
ion: Apresumptionlaw,whi
chmaybeov er
comeby
ev
idence,
as, di
sti
ngui
shedf
rom concl
usi
ve
pr
esumption.

Subpoena: Amandateissuedtoaper
sonrequi
ri
nghi
mt obe
pr
esentatacourtt
ogivet
est
imonyinacer
tai
ncase.

100
 BI
BLI
OGRAPHY

1. Cr
oss,
SirRuper
tEv
idence.LondonBut
ter
wor
ths1990.7thedi
ti
on

2. Zucker
manThepr
inci
plesofCr
imi
nal
Evi
dence(
OUP1989)

3. Mor
ri
sH.
F.Ev
idencei
nEastAf
ri
ca,
LondonSweet&Maxwel
l1968

4. SarkaronEv
idence,
WadhwaandCompanyLawPubl
i
sher
s,NewDel
hi
2000

5. Phi
l
li
pDur
and,Ev
idencef
ormagi
str
ates

6. Rat
anlal
&Dhi
raj
l
al’
l
stheLawofev
idenceWadhwaandCompany
,New
Del
hi1997

101