JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
:Basically, in this second appeal to this Court, there are two matters of law raised, namely; insufficiency of the identification of the appellant by recognition and the failure by the court of first instance to consider his defence at his trial in that court. At the hearing of this appeal on 23rd January, 2002, counsel for the appellant, Mr. Hamza, submitted that the identification of the appellant was through the moonlight. But as the appellant was arrested about 6 months after the offence he was alleged to have committed, it was necessary to conduct an identification parade to affirm the alleged identification by recognition.
No such parade was conducted and according to counsel therefore, the identification of evidence of PHILIP OWIYO (P.W.1) and SULEIMAN MCHASA (P.W.3) amounted to no more than dock identification of the appellant which was of little value if at all. Over and above this, the appellant's defence was neither considered by the trial court nor was …