Milinga v. Republic Crim. App. 400-D-70; 19/8/70; Biron, J.

Milinga v. Republic Crim. App. 400-D-70; 19/8/70; Biron, J.

The appellant was convicted of stealing 4 bags of cement and sentenced to two years imprisonment. The appellant was employed as a foreman on some construction work at one Mission. Then bags of cement were found missing from the work store. Two witnesses; both of them apparently apprentices working under the appellant, testified that one evening the appellant called them and asked them to assist him in taking 4 bags of cement from the store, which they did. One of these witnesses said he was paid Shs. 10/- by the appellant, whilst the other said that he, the appellant, promise him Shs. 20/=, which he had not paid to-date. The appellant giving evidence on oath denied stealing any cement. The magistrate, however, accepted the evidence of the two apprentices and convicted the appellant.

            Held: (1) “The whole of the prosecution’s case rests on the evidence of the two apprentices, who are clearly accomplices, and the magistrate failed to direct himself that they were accomplices and that it would be dangerous to convict on their evidence without corroboration. It is possible, in fact, probable that had the magistrate directed himself on the danger of convicting on uncorroborated accomplice evidence, and he would not have convicted the appellant as he did. Although it is not a rule of law, but only one of practice that he evidence of an accomplice requires corroboration, it is a very salutary rule and it is only in rare cases that a court will convict on such uncorroborated evidence.” (2) “Although the evidence of each of the two apprentices supported that of the other, it is well established that where the evidence of a witness requires corroboration, the evidence of another witness which itself requires corroboration cannot constitute corroboration.” (3) “Appeal allowed.”