Martin Mlasani v. R., Crim. App. 288-A-67, 26/1/68, Seaton J.

Martin Mlasani v. R., Crim. App. 288-A-67, 26/1/68, Seaton J.

Accused was convicted of burglary and robbery. There apparently was evidence that a prosecution witness, who was one of the victims of the crime, had given his name to the police the day following the crime, but none of the policemen who were witnesses testified as to this matter.

            Held: (1) The fact that the witness had identified the accused the day after the crime would have been admissible under section  166 of the Evidence Act if the testimony had been given by an “authority legally competent to investigate” the matter. [Citing Shabani bin Donaldi v. Rex, (1940) 7 E.A.C.A. at P. 60; distinguishing Wario Wako Kella v. R., E.A.C.A Crim. App. 106 of 1967.] (2) The other evidence of identity in the present case was sufficient to support the conviction. Appeal dismissed.