The court considered whether the trial judge came to a correct decision on the identification of the appellant. The court held that that the conditions surrounding identification of the appellant were difficult thus requiring corroborative evidence. The court was satisfied that the evidence of the identifying witness was corroborated by the appellant’s cousin who served with tea shortly before the robbery and recognised his voice of the appellant among a group which was moving from the trading centre shortly after gunshots and robbery thereby placing him in the vicinity of the scene of crime. The court accordingly concluded that the trial judge properly evaluated the evidence and upheld the conviction.
The court further considered whether the sentence imposed on the appellant was excessive. The court held that the fact that there was no loss of life though gunshots were fired mitigated the appellant’s sentence. The court was satisfied that the appellant appears was repentant and had an opportunity to reform and turn into a good citizen. The court accordingly set aside the death sentence and substituted it with 15 years imprisonment.