Kipung’etich Arap Korir v. R., Crim. App. 646-M-67, 27/9/67, Cross J.

Kipung’etich Arap Korir v. R., Crim. App. 646-M-67, 27/9/67, Cross J.

Accused was convicted of cattle theft after proceedings which had been adjourned 16 times for lack of an interpreter. Finally although the accused ‘s language was recorded as Kipsigis, an Mnandi interpreter was chosen to translate the testimony, which was evidently given in Kiswahili. The record further indicates that some, if not all of the translation, was from Kiswahili to Kinandi, and not to Kipsigis.

            Held: The accused ‘s claim that the trial was conducted in a language he could not understand has merit, since the record does not show that he understood Kinandi, or that Kinandi and Kipsigis are similar languages. The requirement of section 193(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code, which calls for the use of interpreters in such cases, was not satisfied.