CORAM
BAIRAMIAN, JUSTICE SUPREME COURT0
BRETT, JUSTICE SUPREME COURT
PARTIES
UMARU GWANDU
APPELLANTS
N. A GWANDU
RESPONDENTS
AREA(S) OF LAW
LAW OF EVIDENCE—WEIGTH OF EVIDENCE—IDENTIFICATION—APPEAL
SUMMARY OF FACTS
The accused/appellant was charged with murder, was found guilty based on his admission and sentenced to death by the Trial Court based on the identification of the murder weapon. He appealed against the sentence in this Court.
HELD
We therefore substitute a conviction of culpable homicide under sec-tions 220 and 222, and sentence the appellant under section 224 of the Penal Code to imprisonment for life.
ISSUES
Not Available
RATIONES DECIDENDI
-IDENTIFICATION OF EXHIBITS
‘He should have asked leave to examine the policeman; and on the rule of audi alteram partem, if his client himself wished to give evidence on the identity of the mortar – which he was denying in the High Court – the Court might have had to consider whether it would not be right to hear him and let him call evidence about the mortar if he so wished.’ Per BAIRAMIAN, F.J.
CASES CITED
Not Available
STATUTES REFERRED TO
1. The Native Courts Law
2. The Penal Code