Olotho v. R. Crim. App. 328-A-69; 8/5/70; Bramble J.

Olotho v. R. Crim. App. 328-A-69; 8/5/70; Bramble J.

This is an appeal against conviction of being in unlawful possession of Piwa c/s 30 of the Manufacture & Distillation Act of 1966. A certificate from the Government analyst confirmed that the liquid in question was Piwa. The main issue, therefore, was where the bottle of Piwa was and the Resident Magistrate found in favour of the prosecution. Advocate for the appellant contended that he was wrong to do so in that although there was another person on the scene he was not called to corroborate the complainant’s evidence.

            Held: (1) “In a case of this nature corroboration is not required by law or practice. It may be that where there is only one witness on either side it is difficult to find the truth but having seen the witnesses the court is able to judge their credibility.” (2) “The other point raised in argument is that the complainant was a constable and had no warrant searching the appellant’s premises in accordance with the provisions of section 33 of the Act. It must e conceded that the search was illegal. The question would e whether the evidence of the goods found was admissible. In R. v. Leathm, (1861) 8 Cox. C.C. at 501 Compton J. laid down the principle that “in considering whether evidence is admissible, the test is whether it is relevant to the matters in issue and, if it is relevant, the court is not concerned with the method by which it was obtained.” This was followed by Lord Goddard C. J. in Karuma s/o Kaniu v. R. (1955) 1 All E. R. 236 which was an appeal to the Privy Council against an order of the Court of Appeal of Eastern Africa. On these authorities it is clear that the evidence here was admissible. For these reasons I must dismiss the appeal.”